From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 15 May 2002 16:03:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 15 May 2002 16:03:45 -0400 Received: from dell-paw-3.cambridge.redhat.com ([195.224.55.237]:34806 "EHLO passion.cambridge.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 15 May 2002 16:03:44 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.4 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 From: David Woodhouse X-Accept-Language: en_GB In-Reply-To: <20020515122003.A13795@work.bitmover.com> To: Larry McVoy Cc: Linus Torvalds , Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Changelogs on kernel.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 21:03:40 +0100 Message-ID: <18732.1021493020@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org lm@bitmover.com said: > FYI, if they do a > bk send -ubk://linux.bkbits.net/linux-2.5 torvalds@transmeta.com > that problem goes away. The -u stuff does the same sort of > handshake that a pull does to figure out what needs to be sent to fill > in the holes. Not quite. The sender usually omits changesets for a _reason_. You'll often find that one of the changesets in the middle wasn't necessary and didn't touch any of the same files -- in which case patches would have applied just fine. -- dwmw2