On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 08:42:33AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 11:48:05PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > It does in some ways anyhow. Following things downstream is rather
> > painless, but one of the things we in the PPC tree hit alot is when we
> > have a new file in one of the sub trees and want to move it up to the
> > 'stable' tree
>
> Summary: only an issue because Linus isn't using BK.
Bitkeeper also seems to have some problems applying out-of-order
changesets or applying them partially.
Changesets sent by 'bk send' are also much harder to read than
unidiffs ;)
I think for bitkeeper to be useful for the kernel we really need:
1) 'bk send' format Linus can read easily
2) the ability to send individual changes (for example, the
foo_net.c fixes from 1.324 and 1.350) in one nice unidiff
3) the ability for Linus to apply patches that are slightly
"out of order" - a direct consequence of (2)
regards,
Rik
--
"Linux holds advantages over the single-vendor commercial OS"
-- Microsoft's "Competing with Linux" document
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 31 2002 - 21:01:22 EST