Documentation/BK-usage/bksend problems?

Documentation/BK-usage/bksend problems?

[Matthias Andree]

Hi,

is bksend in wide use?

I tried to use it to send a patch to ntp-stable with  the help of this
tool, and figured that the gnupatch part always omitted the first
version if you give it a range such as

bksend -r1.838..1.839.

The changes are fine, for 1.838 and 1.839, but the patch itself only
contains the effects of 1.839. The attached gzip_uu wrapped bk
"receive"able stuff is fine again and contains both ChangeSets.

It seems as though it would take "diff 1.839 against 1.838" for bk gnupatch
and "changesets 1.838 to 1.839 inclusively" for bk send.

If that matters:

BitKeeper/Free version is bk-2.1.6-pre5 20020330075529 for x86-glibc22-linux

-- 
Matthias Andree

Re: Documentation/BK-usage/bksend problems?

[Jochen Friedrich]

Hi Matthias,

> The changes are fine, for 1.838 and 1.839, but the patch itself only
> contains the effects of 1.839. The attached gzip_uu wrapped bk
> "receive"able stuff is fine again and contains both ChangeSets.
>
> It seems as though it would take "diff 1.839 against 1.838" for bk gnupatch
> and "changesets 1.838 to 1.839 inclusively" for bk send.

I noticed the same when sending my Token Ring updates. Here i tried to
send 4 changesets and only the second one ended up in the patch while the
bk send part was OK. This was on Alpha, so i don't think it's arch
dependent.

Cheers,
--jochen

Re: Documentation/BK-usage/bksend problems?

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 08:42:59AM +0100, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
> 
> > The changes are fine, for 1.838 and 1.839, but the patch itself only
> > contains the effects of 1.839. The attached gzip_uu wrapped bk
> > "receive"able stuff is fine again and contains both ChangeSets.
> >
> > It seems as though it would take "diff 1.839 against 1.838" for bk gnupatch
> > and "changesets 1.838 to 1.839 inclusively" for bk send.
> 
> I noticed the same when sending my Token Ring updates. Here i tried to
> send 4 changesets and only the second one ended up in the patch while the
> bk send part was OK. This was on Alpha, so i don't think it's arch
> dependent.

I have seen something similar.

bk export -tpatch -r1.984..1.985
only exports cset 1.985

bk export -tpatch -r1.984
exports cset 1.984 as expected.

bk export -tpatch -r1.983..1.985
will export cset 1.984+1.985.

BK Version:
BitKeeper version is bk-3.0 20021011025136 for x86-glibc22-linux
Built by: lm@redhat71.bitmover.com in /build/bk-3.0-lm/src
Built on: Thu Oct 10 20:33:13 PDT 2002

I will submit this with bk sendbug now.

	Sam

Re: Documentation/BK-usage/bksend problems?

[Matthias Andree]

Sam Ravnborg schrieb am Sonntag, den 05. Januar 2003:

> I will submit this with bk sendbug now.

Thank you. It looks as though the bkbugs stuff expected the list of
interested parties in a different syntax; when I added my findings, it
complained about the real names in that list, such as "user Jochen not
found" or something like that. Looks like it's not RFC-822 "To:" header
syntax but just a set of mail addresses.

-- 
Matthias Andree

Re: Documentation/BK-usage/bksend problems?

[Larry McVoy]

On Sun, Jan 05, 2003 at 01:00:29PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg schrieb am Sonntag, den 05. Januar 2003:
> 
> > I will submit this with bk sendbug now.
> 
> Thank you. It looks as though the bkbugs stuff expected the list of
> interested parties in a different syntax; when I added my findings, it
> complained about the real names in that list, such as "user Jochen not
> found" or something like that. Looks like it's not RFC-822 "To:" header
> syntax but just a set of mail addresses.

Right.  We'll fix the validation code.  
-- 
---
Larry McVoy            	 lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitmover.com/lm