using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?

using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?

[Andreas Schuldei]

I want to use/track the linuxconsole project (especially for its
Multi-desktop operation), which tracks 2.5 on the stable tree
2.4.

is bitkeeper the easiest way to go? i imagine the patch sets to
be like transformations, which can be superimposed, so i would
clone marcellos and linus tree, generate a linuxconsole patchset
against linus tree and backport it to marcellos tree. (there are
older backports, which should make my live easier.) 

I imagine that i had two 'transforms' now: first the linuxconsole
transform, which changes over time as the project (and the
kernel) moves on, and the backport transform, which i hope to
remain more static. Can i superimpose these transforms? Is this
how it works?

has anyone done this before? is there a howto or could someone
outline the bitkeeper steps needed? Any catches?

Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?

[Val Henson]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:34:10AM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> I want to use/track the linuxconsole project (especially for its
> Multi-desktop operation), which tracks 2.5 on the stable tree
> 2.4.
> 
> is bitkeeper the easiest way to go? i imagine the patch sets to
> be like transformations, which can be superimposed, so i would
> clone marcellos and linus tree, generate a linuxconsole patchset
> against linus tree and backport it to marcellos tree. (there are
> older backports, which should make my live easier.) 
> 
> I imagine that i had two 'transforms' now: first the linuxconsole
> transform, which changes over time as the project (and the
> kernel) moves on, and the backport transform, which i hope to
> remain more static. Can i superimpose these transforms? Is this
> how it works?
> 
> has anyone done this before? is there a howto or could someone
> outline the bitkeeper steps needed? Any catches?

Sigh.  I hate this question: "How will BitKeeper make it easier to
port something between 2.4 and 2.5?"  Answer: "Bk won't help - at
least not as much as it would help if 2.5 had been cloned from 2.4."

As far as bk is concerned, 2.4 and 2.5 are two completely unrelated
repositories, so you can't push or pull changes between them.  You can
still use bk to export and import patches, and to help you understand
what a change was attempting to do, so it's not completely useless.

If I were you, I would:

1. Grab the linux-2.4, linux-2.5, and linuxconsole trees.
2. Use "bk changes -L <location of vanilla 2.5 tree>" to get a list of
   all the changes in the linuxconsole tree but not in the mainline.
3. Export those changes as a GNU patch, something like:

   for i in `bk changes -L ../linux-2.5 -k | bk key2rev ChangeSet`; do
      bk export -tpatch -r$i >> ../console_patches;
   done

   Note: This won't collapse overlapping patches.  There is probably a
   smarter way to do this.

4. Attempt to apply that patch to the linux-2.4 tree:

   cd ../linux-2.4
   bk import -tpatch ../console_patches

5. Clean up the resulting mess.  I suggest bringing up revtool in the
   linuxconsole tree and reading the comments and generally browsing
   the related changesets for each file in order to figure out what
   rejected bits of patches were supposed to do.

For documentation, try the following:

Jeff Garzik's BK Kernel Hacking HOWTO:

http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0202.2/1060.html

[Warning: Blatant personal plug] BitKeeper for Kernel Developers:

http://www.nmt.edu/~val/ols/bk.ps.gz

I also highly recommend the Bitkeeper test drive even for people who
have been using bk for a while:

http://www.bitkeeper.com/Test.html

After using bk for over a year, I still learned something new (and
very useful) when I took the test drive.

-VAL

Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:15:10AM -0600, Val Henson wrote:
> Sigh.  I hate this question: "How will BitKeeper make it easier to
> port something between 2.4 and 2.5?"  Answer: "Bk won't help - at
> least not as much as it would help if 2.5 had been cloned from 2.4."

2.5 _is_ cloned from 2.4..

Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?

[Andreas Schuldei]

* Christoph Hellwig (hch@lst.de) [020722 10:29]:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:15:10AM -0600, Val Henson wrote:
> > Sigh.  I hate this question: "How will BitKeeper make it easier to
> > port something between 2.4 and 2.5?"  Answer: "Bk won't help - at
> > least not as much as it would help if 2.5 had been cloned from 2.4."
> 
> 2.5 _is_ cloned from 2.4..

can one make use of that somehow?

Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 12:27:05PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> * Christoph Hellwig (hch@lst.de) [020722 10:29]:
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:15:10AM -0600, Val Henson wrote:
> > > Sigh.  I hate this question: "How will BitKeeper make it easier to
> > > port something between 2.4 and 2.5?"  Answer: "Bk won't help - at
> > > least not as much as it would help if 2.5 had been cloned from 2.4."
> > 
> > 2.5 _is_ cloned from 2.4..
> 
> can one make use of that somehow?

/me ain't no bk guru.

but I'd be interested in that, too.

Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?

[Larry McVoy]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 12:29:05PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 12:27:05PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> > * Christoph Hellwig (hch@lst.de) [020722 10:29]:
> > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:15:10AM -0600, Val Henson wrote:
> > > > Sigh.  I hate this question: "How will BitKeeper make it easier to
> > > > port something between 2.4 and 2.5?"  Answer: "Bk won't help - at
> > > > least not as much as it would help if 2.5 had been cloned from 2.4."
> > > 
> > > 2.5 _is_ cloned from 2.4..
> > 
> > can one make use of that somehow?
> 
> /me ain't no bk guru.
> 
> but I'd be interested in that, too.

I'll try and write up how to do the backport thing later today (after
I have some coffee) but I wanted to answer this one.

In theory, the fact that the 2.4 and 2.5 trees are clones of each other
means that you could just do a bk pull of the 2.5 tree into the 2.4 tree
and you'd be all set.  In practice, it's not going to work very well;
the problem is that that a lot of files, the same files, were added to
both the 2.4 and the 2.5 tree.  As far as BK is concerned, these are
different files, they have different "inode numbers".  Today, when you
do the pull, you'll be forced to move one of the files out of the way,
typically deleting it and using the other one.  That's not what you want,
you really want the two "inodes" to be merged into one in such a way that
synchronizing with either a 2.4 or a 2.5 tree would take any updates to
either inode and apply them to the merged inode.

Unless BK is taught to handle that case, I think a 2.4 / 2.5 merge 
using BK is hopeless, I tried it about a month after the trees 
split and there were piles of file conflicts.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?

[Andreas Schuldei]

* Larry McVoy (lm@bitmover.com) [020722 17:26]:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 12:29:05PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 12:27:05PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> > > * Christoph Hellwig (hch@lst.de) [020722 10:29]:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:15:10AM -0600, Val Henson wrote:
> > > > > Sigh.  I hate this question: "How will BitKeeper make it easier to
> > > > > port something between 2.4 and 2.5?"  Answer: "Bk won't help - at
> > > > > least not as much as it would help if 2.5 had been cloned from 2.4."
> > > > 
> > > > 2.5 _is_ cloned from 2.4..
> > > 
> > > can one make use of that somehow?
> > 
> > /me ain't no bk guru.
> > 
> > but I'd be interested in that, too.
> 
> I'll try and write up how to do the backport thing later today (after
> I have some coffee) but I wanted to answer this one.

did you have coffee yet? i would really value your opinion of how
to procede best. i do not expect bitkeeper to do the work on its
own. I just hope to find a easy way to do the work repetitivly.

Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 12:27:05PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> * Christoph Hellwig (hch@lst.de) [020722 10:29]:
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:15:10AM -0600, Val Henson wrote:
> > > Sigh.  I hate this question: "How will BitKeeper make it easier to
> > > port something between 2.4 and 2.5?"  Answer: "Bk won't help - at
> > > least not as much as it would help if 2.5 had been cloned from 2.4."
> > 
> > 2.5 _is_ cloned from 2.4..
> 
> can one make use of that somehow?

Possibly, once bitkeeper allowes ChangeSets to only depend on what they
actually need, not every previous ChangeSet in the repository.  IIRC,
this was one of the things Linus asked for, so hopefully it will happen.

-- 
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?

[Roger Gammans]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1236 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 08:20:31AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> Possibly, once bitkeeper allowes ChangeSets to only depend on what they
> actually need, not every previous ChangeSet in the repository.  IIRC,
> this was one of the things Linus asked for, so hopefully it will happen.

While that would be great.

With all due respect to Larry and the bk team, I think you'll
find determining 'needed changesets' in this case is a _hard_ problem.

How is bk supposed to find that a change depends on a previously
redefined api declared in a set of files othwerwise untouched by the 
changeset being exported.

Now , bk could make this a little easier by allowing changesets to
be exported without any dependencies (ala GNU-patch export - but
with metadata for commit messages).

The developer can then use a 'bk undo'  to remove the unnessary changeset
for his patch , reapply keeping the commit metadata, test and now
re-export a full bk patch with minimal dependencies.

Unfortuantely I know know way of currently instructing bk to
do this dependency-less export.

--
TTFN
Roger.
Master of Peng Shui.  (Ancient oriental art of Penguin Arranging)
GPG Key FPR: CFF1 F383 F854 4E6A 918D  5CFF A90D E73B 88DE 0B3E

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]

Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?

[Larry McVoy]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:29:41PM +0100, Roger Gammans wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 08:20:31AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > Possibly, once bitkeeper allowes ChangeSets to only depend on what they
> > actually need, not every previous ChangeSet in the repository.  IIRC,
> > this was one of the things Linus asked for, so hopefully it will happen.
> 
> While that would be great.
> 
> With all due respect to Larry and the bk team, I think you'll
> find determining 'needed changesets' in this case is a _hard_ problem.

Thanks, we agree completely.  It's actually an impossible problem
for a program since it requires semantic knowledge of the content
under revision control.  And even then the program can get it wrong
(think about a change which shortens the depth of the stack followed by
a change that won't work with the old stack depth, now you export that
to the other tree and it breaks yet it worked in the first tree).

> Now , bk could make this a little easier by allowing changesets to
> be exported without any dependencies (ala GNU-patch export - but
> with metadata for commit messages).

That's trivial to do, we already have a 'bk export -tpatch -r<rev>' which
does the patch part.  Combine that with 'bk changes -vr<rev>' and you have
what you are talking about on the sending side.  On the receiving side
we have 'bk import -tpatch' and 'bk comments' which do the other half.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?

[Lars Marowsky-Bree]

On 2002-07-22T15:44:43,
   Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> said:

> > With all due respect to Larry and the bk team, I think you'll
> > find determining 'needed changesets' in this case is a _hard_ problem.
> Thanks, we agree completely.  It's actually an impossible problem
> for a program since it requires semantic knowledge of the content
> under revision control. 

So, another option would be to have the developer define explicit dependencies
for his changesets, but I fear that might prove to cumbersome, too.


Sincerely,
    Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@suse.de>

-- 
Immortality is an adequate definition of high availability for me.
	--- Gregory F. Pfister

Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?

[Eric W. Biederman]

Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> writes:

> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 11:29:41PM +0100, Roger Gammans wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 08:20:31AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > Possibly, once bitkeeper allowes ChangeSets to only depend on what they
> > > actually need, not every previous ChangeSet in the repository.  IIRC,
> > > this was one of the things Linus asked for, so hopefully it will happen.
> > 
> > While that would be great.
> > 
> > With all due respect to Larry and the bk team, I think you'll
> > find determining 'needed changesets' in this case is a _hard_ problem.
> 
> Thanks, we agree completely.  It's actually an impossible problem
> for a program since it requires semantic knowledge of the content
> under revision control.  And even then the program can get it wrong
> (think about a change which shortens the depth of the stack followed by
> a change that won't work with the old stack depth, now you export that
> to the other tree and it breaks yet it worked in the first tree).

Perfection is impossible.  However there is a lot of independent code
in the linux kernel.  It has to be that way or maintenance would quickly
become impossible.  

The last time this was suggested, the idea was to look how far back into
the repository  (up to a given limit) a current changeset could apply, with all
of it's current dependencies. 

But beyond that I suspect it would be easier to declare lack of dependencies.

drivers/net and drivers/ide are completely separate subtrees.  At
least not until you get ATA over ip.  And even then the dependencies
is with the ip layer.  

Maybe independence should be shown by putting each independent chunk
into it's own repository.  And then building a working kernel tree 
would just be a matter of checking out all of the parallel
repositories, into the appropriate location.  Then the global tree
can just remember which version of all of the subtrees it was
tested with last.

Given that a fully independent program is likely to break because of
a buggy libc (which I have no business depending upon the exact
version), I think the insistence on global dependencies is just plain
silly, you can never find the entire set of dependencies.  

So Larry please cope with the fact that perfect dependency modeling is
impossible, and setup a method that works in the real world.  Or do
you have a way to model that my code only works on a magic test
machine, that magically catches a page fault, and does the right
thing, while all other machines page fault reliably?

Eric

Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?

[Larry McVoy]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 12:38:54PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > With all due respect to Larry and the bk team, I think you'll
> > > find determining 'needed changesets' in this case is a _hard_ problem.
> > 
> > Thanks, we agree completely.  It's actually an impossible problem
> > for a program since it requires semantic knowledge of the content
> > under revision control.  And even then the program can get it wrong
> > (think about a change which shortens the depth of the stack followed by
> > a change that won't work with the old stack depth, now you export that
> > to the other tree and it breaks yet it worked in the first tree).
> 
> The last time this was suggested, the idea was to look how far back into
> the repository  (up to a given limit) a current changeset could apply, with all
> of it's current dependencies. 
> 
> But beyond that I suspect it would be easier to declare lack of dependencies.

[I'm going to argue with you up here, mostly to just explanations of how/why
BK works, but you can skip down to the next section and you'll see we have
a fair amount of agreement]

All of what you are saying makes perfect sense in a centralized system
like CVS, Perforce, Subversion, whatever.  The reason it makes sense is
that there is exactly one copy of the truth, you can manipulate it in
the one location which has it, and that's that.  

Sort of sounds like all those tools are better than BitKeeper, given
that description, right?  Because BitKeeper is distributed, there is no
one place that you can do anything and force it upon everyone else.
You can only do things to your local revision history in a recorded
way and propogate that to anyone else that wants it.

Again, sounds like the distributed nature of BK is causing all sorts
of problems, so why not just toss it, centralized systems manage 99.9%
or more of the world's source, so they must be good enough.  Maybe not.
It is the peer to peer nature of BK which allows all sorts of things to
work, from mundane stuff like performance (you operate against a local
copy of the history) to more complex things like work flow (it's trivial
to mimic Rational's unified change management system with a series of
repositories) to practical things like working both at home and at
work and not losing data.

Whether you agree or disagree with the value of the distributed nature
of BitKeeper, that's a basic part of how it works and it can be tweaked
but not thrown out.  Consider it a "limitation" of the BitKeeper design.

OK, so now think about what you are asking.  You want to move
changesets around out of order.  Please explain to me how you are
going to synchronize two trees when you've done that.  Right now,
we can use the fact that there is a strong ordering to do fast and
lightweight synchronization.  Do an strace of a pull from bkbits.net when
there is nothing to pull and count the bytes that go across the wire.
It's tiny, probably about 5-6KB.  Now do the same thing with CVS, the
amount of data is proportional to the number of files in the tree, i.e.,
dramatically more.

The reason we can do what we do is that a changeset actually implies the
existence of all the changesets which came before it.  As soon as we do
the out of order stuff, we can no longer depend on that.  The openlogging
kernel tree has 12,000 changesets in it.  If I can't depend on ordering,
do you want me to compare all 12,000 to see if I need to update anything?
Or should I start doing the file by file comparison that CVS does?
No thanks, that sucks, we can quantify exactly how much it sucks and it
is too much.

I'm not saying "no, we won't fix it", I'm saying "understand why it is
the way it is and then suggest a fix".  In other words, don't throw
the baby out with the bath water.

> drivers/net and drivers/ide are completely separate subtrees.  At
> least not until you get ATA over ip.  And even then the dependencies
> is with the ip layer.  
> 
> Maybe independence should be shown by putting each independent chunk
> into it's own repository.  And then building a working kernel tree 
> would just be a matter of checking out all of the parallel
> repositories, into the appropriate location.  Then the global tree
> can just remember which version of all of the subtrees it was
> tested with last.

Whoohoo!  Agree completely, and we're building this, we call them nested
repositories and they work pretty much exactly as you describe.  However,
even there we do get into problems.  Here's how: suppose that you have a
nested repo for include/ppc and another for arch/ppc.  You make a change
in both and you commit a sort of "super changeset" which binds those
changes together because one won't work without the other.  Now you go
to pull the include/ppc directory for some reason and it will force you
to pull the arch/ppc directory.  So the dependencies are reduced but
can still creep across the boundaries.  Not doing so isn't an option
because we can all agree we have to have some way to say "these changes
which span these subrepositories must move as a unit".

> Given that a fully independent program is likely to break because of
> a buggy libc (which I have no business depending upon the exact
> version), I think the insistence on global dependencies is just plain
> silly, you can never find the entire set of dependencies.  

Agreed.  And it's unlikely anyone would take explicit actions to bind
their app to libc unless for some reason they really did need at least
glibc2.3 for some (probably bad, IMHO) reason.  So you'd be OK there.

By the way, we have customers who maintain (large) embedded Linux
distributions in BitKeeper with literally hundreds of unrelated
repositories, i.e., one for the kernel, one for gcc, one for make,
etc.  They are the motivation behind the nested stuff so they don't
have to do scripts which do things like

	for i in `cat list_of_repos`
	do	cd ~/ws/$i && bk pull
	done

> So Larry please cope with the fact that perfect dependency modeling is
> impossible, and setup a method that works in the real world.  

It's high on our list and we are working on it.  I get a little touchy
about it because some of what people say they want just won't work in
a distributed system, but as you suggested, there is more than one way
to do it and the nested stuff is a good start.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm 

Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?

[Thunder from the hill]

Hi,

On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 2.5 _is_ cloned from 2.4..

Not exactly. Several things have been moved around, note e.g. the 
additional "sound" directory...

							Regards,
							Thunder
-- 
(Use http://www.ebb.org/ungeek if you can't decode)
------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Version: 3.12
GCS/E/G/S/AT d- s++:-- a? C++$ ULAVHI++++$ P++$ L++++(+++++)$ E W-$
N--- o?  K? w-- O- M V$ PS+ PE- Y- PGP+ t+ 5+ X+ R- !tv b++ DI? !D G
e++++ h* r--- y- 
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 04:43:58AM -0600, Thunder from the hill wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > 2.5 _is_ cloned from 2.4..
> 
> Not exactly.

Yes, _exactly_.  With BK trees are either cloned or completly separate.

> Several things have been moved around, note e.g. the 
> additional "sound" directory...

What does the movearound of files/directories change?

Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?

[Thunder from the hill]

Hi,

On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Several things have been moved around, note e.g. the 
> > additional "sound" directory...
> 
> What does the movearound of files/directories change?

One can't update a non-existing file in a non-existing directory. But 
maybe Bk could track down the changes and find the moved file to update...

							Regards,
							Thunder
-- 
(Use http://www.ebb.org/ungeek if you can't decode)
------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Version: 3.12
GCS/E/G/S/AT d- s++:-- a? C++$ ULAVHI++++$ P++$ L++++(+++++)$ E W-$
N--- o?  K? w-- O- M V$ PS+ PE- Y- PGP+ t+ 5+ X+ R- !tv b++ DI? !D G
e++++ h* r--- y- 
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 05:02:53AM -0600, Thunder from the hill wrote:
> One can't update a non-existing file in a non-existing directory. But 
> maybe Bk could track down the changes and find the moved file to update...

BK _does_ track renames.  Could you please at least read the basic docs
before bullshitting on this list?

Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?

[Mark Mielke]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 12:46:27PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 04:43:58AM -0600, Thunder from the hill wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > 2.5 _is_ cloned from 2.4..
> > Not exactly.
> Yes, _exactly_.  With BK trees are either cloned or completly separate.

It would have been very foolish to not clone 2.4. Worst case would have
2.5 cloned from 2.3 or 2.2, but the version tree would still be intact,
just a little indirect. (As far as I am aware, 2.5 is cloned from 2.4)

> > Several things have been moved around, note e.g. the 
> > additional "sound" directory...
> What does the movearound of files/directories change?

Nothing, assuming BK is a proper soure management system, which it should be.

In CVS? It would be big problems. But this is one reason why CVS is not
used for real projects such as the Linux Kernel.

mark

-- 
mark@mielke.cc/markm@ncf.ca/markm@nortelnetworks.com __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/

Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 09:45:05AM -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
> It would have been very foolish to not clone 2.4. Worst case would have
> 2.5 cloned from 2.3 or 2.2, but the version tree would still be intact,
> just a little indirect. (As far as I am aware, 2.5 is cloned from 2.4)

Just that there were no official 2.2/2.3 Linux BK trees..

Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?

[Val Henson]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 10:29:30AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 01:15:10AM -0600, Val Henson wrote:
> > Sigh.  I hate this question: "How will BitKeeper make it easier to
> > port something between 2.4 and 2.5?"  Answer: "Bk won't help - at
> > least not as much as it would help if 2.5 had been cloned from 2.4."
> 
> 2.5 _is_ cloned from 2.4..

Really?  Cool, I wonder where I got the idea it wasn't...

Even so, I can't figure out how to backport from 2.5 to 2.4 without
using patches (but Larry's smarter than I am, he might know how).
Cherry picking would only solve part of the problem, the independent
creation of what is logically the same file is a bigger problem.
Instead of making "stable" changes to the 2.4 tree and pulling them
into the dev tree, they've been independently applied to both trees.
Development on 2.4 and 2.5 would have to be more coordinated with each
other than it is right now to really take advantage of the ability to
push/pull between 2.4 and 2.5.

-VAL

Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?

[Matthias Urlichs]

Lars:
>   Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> said:
>  > Thanks, we agree completely.  It's actually an impossible problem
>  > for a program since it requires semantic knowledge of the content
>  > under revision control.
>
>  So, another option would be to have the developer define explicit 
>dependencies
>  for his changesets, but I fear that might prove to cumbersome, too.
>
If you spend the effort to do _that_, you might as well clone your BK 
tree and prune it back to a state which conceivably has only the 
changes which you depend on.

Another problem with that approach, however, is that if everybody 
does it then the kernel's version tree, as evident in "bk revtool", 
gets totally unreadable. It is already an order of magnitude too 
complicated.  :-(

-- 
Matthias Urlichs