From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 08:49:45 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Larry McVoy , Sven Luther , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org, Paul Mackerras , bitkeeper-users@bitmover.com Subject: Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ? Message-ID: <20040123154945.GV15271@stop.crashing.org> References: <20040119152954.GD13454@stop.crashing.org> <20040119154758.GA23038@iliana> <20040119155801.GF13454@stop.crashing.org> <20040119163857.GB23613@iliana> <20040119164849.GG13454@stop.crashing.org> <20040119170741.GA23943@iliana> <20040119172251.GH13454@stop.crashing.org> <20040119173000.GA24440@iliana> <20040119174330.GI13454@stop.crashing.org> <20040123154058.GA15605@work.bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20040123154058.GA15605@work.bitmover.com> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 07:40:58AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:43:30AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:30:00PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:22:51AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > Yeah, but the point is, i am not sure if i am the person most > > > > > appropriate to checking which of all those changeset are needed or not. > > > > > A proper tagging would be much more appropriate, and make for easy > > > > > reference when getting feedback and such. > > > > > > > > A proper tagging, for distribution use, isn't possible 100% of the time. > > > > For example, if the tree goes from v2.4.29 to v2.4.30-pre1 to > > > > v2.4.30-pre2 all while myself/Paul/Ben are on vacation, theres no way > > > > to bring the bitkeeper tree, as of v2.4.30-pre1 and v2.4.30-pre2 into > > > > linuxppc-2.4 and make a tag for each. Likewise, if we don't grab the > > > > bitkeeper tree at exactly v2.4.30-pre2, we can't make a tag that > > > > corresponds to exactly that. > > > > > > Ohh. So this should be attributed to bitkeeper brokeness then ? > > > > I think it's just a design issue. You can't export as a bitkeeper tree > > a bitkeeper tree at a given revision because it would be too much work, > > or something. I don't know for certain. Can anyone on the > > bitkeepr-users list shed some light on why there's no 'bk export -tbk' ? > > Or is there a functional equivalent that I don't know? > > I don't know what it is that you are trying to do but I can guess. > > Regardless, the reason there is no 'bk export -tbk' is because it is not > a feature that most people find useful. I suspect that this is something > that is more interesting to the open source folks than the commercial > folks and if that is the case it isn't going to get fixed unless > someone convinces their management to fund the change. We're willing > to do just about anything you want if you can foot the engineering NRE. It turns out I just forgot about 'bk clone -rXXXX' which, at least in my mind is equivalent to 'bk export -tbk -rXXXX'. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/