From: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
To: Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>
Cc: Aaron Lehmann <aaronl@vitelus.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BKCVS issue
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 20:50:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200306022050.51909.rob@landley.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030602233901.GT10102@phunnypharm.org>
On Monday 02 June 2003 19:39, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 07:37:02PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Monday 02 June 2003 17:14, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > > For the past few days, it seems like every time something changes in
> > > BK, the bkcvs repository has all of its files touched. At least, all
> > > files in the repository have a P preceding their names on a cvs up.
> > >
> > > It's not intolerable, but I was wondering if anyone's aware of it.
> >
> > CVS thinks of changes as having been applied in a certain order, with
> > each cange applying to the result of previous changes.
> >
> > Bitkeeper does not. Each change applies to a historical version of the
> > tree, and when it gets two sets of changes based on the same historical
> > tree neither one of them goes "before" the other, they both apply to the
> > old tree. (This isn't a linear process, it's lots and lots of branches.
> > Conflicts don't come up at this point, think quantum indeterminacy and
> > the trousers of time and all that.)
>
> bkcvs doesn't do this. It can't. There's no way for CVS to represent
> what BK does. bkcvs is instead linear, but some commits are groups of
> changesets instead of single changesets.
>
> The problem is that bkcvs 2.5 is broken. Larry has said he will fix it,
> time permitting.
I was under the impression that the problem in bkcvs was a design issue: it
converted a BK repository to a CVS repository by creating a fresh CVS
repository from scratch each time. It didn't modify an existing CVS
repository, which would be a bit more work.
It's not impossible, I suppose. If you can feed bk the tree version that the
old CVS was created against, there's existing logic to create create a
gnu-style patch that gets the tree from point B to point C. The only problem
with creating a series of CVS entries instead of a patch is keeping the
changes seperate when you do it...
Dunno how big a problem that is, I haven't looked at the BK source. I'd like
to keep my options open if I decide to work on subversion or some such in the
future. :)
Rob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-06-03 0:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-06-02 21:14 BKCVS issue Aaron Lehmann
2003-06-02 23:37 ` Rob Landley
2003-06-02 23:39 ` Ben Collins
2003-06-03 0:50 ` Rob Landley [this message]
2003-06-03 0:03 ` Ben Collins
2003-06-03 0:37 ` Aaron Lehmann
2003-06-03 2:28 ` Larry McVoy
2003-06-03 6:56 ` Jasper Spaans
2003-06-05 20:54 ` Larry McVoy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200306022050.51909.rob@landley.net \
--to=rob@landley.net \
--cc=aaronl@vitelus.com \
--cc=bcollins@debian.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.