Re: Linux 2.4 and BitKeeper

[torvalds@transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds)]

In article <20020315080408.D11940@work.bitmover.com>,
Larry McVoy  <lm@bitmover.com> wrote:
>
>Has anyone done this and made it work?  It would save a lot of disk space
>and performance if someone were to so.

Hey, the _sane_ way to do it is to not have all those crappy SCCS
dependencies in all the tools, but to simply make a bk work area be a
real file tree!

Larry, your argument that there are tools that are SCCS-aware is just
not sane. For each tool that is SCCS-aware, I will name a hundred that
are not, and that you're not going to fix. The only sane way to make
_everything_ bitkeeper-aware is to keep the tree checked out and to keep
the bitkeeper files somewhere else.

Right now simple things like command-line completion and

	find . -name '*.[chS]' | xargs grep xxxx

do not work, because they either don't find files or they find the wrong
ones (the internal bitkeeper files etc). 

I'd much rather have a separate working area, ie if my repository is
under ~/BK/repository/kernel/linux-2.5, then the checked out tree would
be under ~/BK/repository/kernel/linux-2.5/workarea, and I would just
have a simple symbolic link from ~/v2.5 to the workarea (and never even
_see_ the BitKeeper files unless I thought I needed to). 

None of this "special tools for normal actions" crap.

			Linus