* bitkeeper, the 2_4_devel tree, and branches
@ 2002-05-21 0:35 Dan Kegel
2002-05-21 1:00 ` Dan Kegel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Dan Kegel @ 2002-05-21 0:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org; +Cc: dank
My naive assumption, looking at the changesets listed at
http://ppc.bkbits.net:8080/linuxppc_2_4_devel/
was that if I cloned the repository as of two adjacent
changesets, and exported from those repositories,
the result would differ by exactly the second changeset.
That's probably true at some level, but when I tried
it with the two tags 1.899 and v2.4.18 (aka 1.2.2.131),
which are adjacent in the changeset list on that web page,
I got two entirely different trees. It seems many branches
exist in the linuxppc_2_4_devel tree, and that bk names
branches using the godawful SCCS/CVS branch naming scheme.
(Hrmf- after getting used to Perforce's branch naming, it's
hard to go back to the
branch-name-is-suffix-on-version-number-of-each-file
way of life.)
Bitkeeper's doc is a bit thin on branches; for instance,
http://www.bitkeeper.com/manpages/bk-terms-1.html doesn't
have a definition for 'branch'.
So it seems that, unless one knows what one is doing,
one should avoid any revisions with more than one dot
in their name, and one should shun the tags 'v2.4.xx',
which are probably just mirrors of the Linus kernels.
Can someone confirm this, say a couple words on the use
of branches in the 2_4_devel tree, and explain how the
v2.4.xx tags are useful to linux ppc kernel hackers?
Thanks!
- Dan
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: bitkeeper, the 2_4_devel tree, and branches
2002-05-21 0:35 bitkeeper, the 2_4_devel tree, and branches Dan Kegel
@ 2002-05-21 1:00 ` Dan Kegel
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Dan Kegel @ 2002-05-21 1:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org, dank
As a followup:
I saved
http://ppc.bkbits.net:8080/linuxppc_2_4_devel/ChangeSet@-1y?nav=index.html
as text in netscape, then ran it through
grep -i ' 1\.[0-9]* .*Merge to 2.4'
to figure out which revisions with only one dot in
their changeset name roughly corresponded to Linus kernels.
Result:
10 weeks paulus 1.909 merge to 2.4.19-pre3 pulled from
linux_2_4 tree
4 months paulus 1.827 merge to 2.4.18-pre7
5 months paulus 1.796 merge to 2.4.18-pre2
6 months paulus 1.749 merge to 2.4.17-pre6
7 months paulus 1.654 merge to 2.4.15-pre5
7 months paulus 1.625 merge to 2.4.15-pre3
7 months trini 1.611 Merge to 2.4.15-pre1.
9 months paulus 1.468 merge to 2.4.10-pre11
9 months paulus 1.464 merge to 2.4.10-pre10
9 months paulus 1.456 merge to 2.4.10-pre9
9 months paulus 1.442 merge to 2.4.10-pre8
9 months paulus 1.440 new version of radeon driver, merge to
2.4.10-pre7
9 months paulus 1.439 merge to 2.4.10-pre7
9 months paulus 1.380 merge to 2.4.10-pre1
10 months paulus 1.294 merge to 2.4.9-pre1
10 months trini 1.257 Merge to 2.4.8-pre1
11 months paulus 1.209 merge to 2.4.7-pre5
This might be useful info for someone using the main branch
of linux_2_4 and who needs a bugfix that was introduced
with a particular Linus kernel, I suppose.
- Dan
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-05-21 1:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-05-21 0:35 bitkeeper, the 2_4_devel tree, and branches Dan Kegel
2002-05-21 1:00 ` Dan Kegel
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).