From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jesse Barnes Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 12:48:57 +0000 Subject: Re: IA64 bitkeeper trees (again) Message-Id: <200408190848.57482.jbarnes@engr.sgi.com> List-Id: References: <4123D3A2.2050609@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4123D3A2.2050609@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday, August 18, 2004 6:09 pm, Tony Luck wrote: > The actual names all have "linux-ia64-" prepended. E.g. > > http://lia64.bkbits.net/linux-ia64-test-2.6.9 > > The names of the trees all change when Linus makes a release. > > Len also gave me a script to create plain patches for non-BK > users ... I'll make the tweaks to the pathnames and get those > running soon. Maybe I'm just used to the old method, but doesn't this make it harder to just do a 'pull' on an existing tree to merge one's changes up to the latest code? It also seems like it makes it more confusing if you ask Linus to pull multiple times in a release cycle. I liked your first message about trees better. :) In particular, this part: > I've set up two bitkeeper trees too: > http://lia64.bkbits.net/to-base-2.6 > is my holding area for patches that I want Linus to pull. > > http://lia64.bkbits.net/linux-ia64-2.6 > will be a place for me to stash changesets that I'm not ready > to push (or for any non-ia64 specific changes that I want to > play with). At the moment there is nothing in this tree that > isn't also queued in the to-base-2.6 tree. > > Summary: For 99% of uses, you can clone a tree from Linus and > use it on ia64. If you are sending a sequence of related patches > and know that I've taken some of them, then either of my trees > should work for you. But maybe I'm missing the advantages of the scheme Len is using? Thanks, Jesse