Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?

From: Lars Marowsky-Bree (lmb@suse.de)
Date: Tue Jul 23 2002 - 03:16:15 EST

Next message: Thunder from the hill: "Re: mkinitrd problem"
Previous message: Michael Bauer: "gettimeofday() running backwards (again)"
In reply to: Larry McVoy: "Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?"
Next in thread: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On 2002-07-22T15:44:43,
Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> said:

> > With all due respect to Larry and the bk team, I think you'll
> > find determining 'needed changesets' in this case is a _hard_ problem.
> Thanks, we agree completely. It's actually an impossible problem
> for a program since it requires semantic knowledge of the content
> under revision control.

So, another option would be to have the developer define explicit dependencies
for his changesets, but I fear that might prove to cumbersome, too.

Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@suse.de>

-- Immortality is an adequate definition of high availability for me. --- Gregory F. Pfister

- 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/

Next message: Thunder from the hill: "Re: mkinitrd problem"
Previous message: Michael Bauer: "gettimeofday() running backwards (again)"
In reply to: Larry McVoy: "Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?"
Next in thread: Eric W. Biederman: "Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 23 2002 - 22:00:42 EST