From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Thompson Subject: Re: Xen repository Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 09:06:56 -0400 Message-ID: <4291D570.6040909@aktzero.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Pratt Cc: Jim Greer , Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, "Ronald G. Minnich" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Ian Pratt wrote: > BK's algorithm for slecting the main branch is very 'odd' indeed, and as > it stands we'd loose a great deal of the revision history. I reckon we > could do a much better job of linearizing the history (possibly with a > bit of manual intervention). I'm not really familiar with bitkeeper or this pick-your-patches style of management/merging. Is there useful documentation outside of the bigkeeper user guide? (googling bitkeeper gives two pages of bitkeeper vs linux/open source hits) > Can anyone think of a way of getting > bitkeeper to output the revision DAG in a parseable form? Having this > would also make it possible to keep the branch structure while > transfering to a tool like mercurial or cogito. I'm not sure what DAG is, but I read a lkml posting from Linus that stated he had scripted a method of dumping data from BitKeeper, but hadn't used it because he expected it to take days to complete(to pull the kernel source tree). -- Andrew Thompson http://aktzero.com/