Re: Problems using new Linux-2.4 bitkeeper repository.

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>]

lm@bitmover.com said:
> If you get into a duplicate patch situation, you are far better off to
>  pick one tree or the other tree as the official tree, and cherrypick
> the changes that the unofficial tree has and place them in the
> official tree.  Then toss the unofficial tree.  I can make you a "bk
> portpatch" command which does this, we have that already, it needs a
> bit of updating to catch the comments. 

That's essentially what I had to write to move my trees over, so an official 
one would be extremely useful.  I do have the piece which catches the comments 
if you want it.

jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com said:
> So, knowing that duplicate patches are a bad thing helps not in the
> least here... 

If bitkeeper had a way of replacing duplicate patches, this would be extremely 
useful.  All I really needed to do was replace the keys in the changelog from 
the garzik tree with the mareclo one to get my changes moved over.  I think 
essentially this could be done with a bk send|bk receive as long as I can tell 
bitkeeper that it needs a substitute set of keys when applying the bkpatch.

James