Re: 2.5 changeset 1.952.4.2 corrupt in fs/jfs/inode.c

[Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 02:04:21PM -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 February 2003 11:40, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > I'd appreciate if you could check why bitkeeper thinks such function
> > is nobh_truncate_page and not block_truncate_page as my GPL software
> > pretends while it checkouts all the changesets from the bitkeeper
> > servers.
> 
> Andrea,
> The change from block_truncate_page to nobh_truncate_page was done in 
> Changeset 1.879.43.1.  This was created on January 9th, but not merged 
> into Linus' tree until Monday, so it is not in 2.5.59.  I think the 

if you think it's normal the thing sounds very messy. I mean, how can
a changeset be numbered 1.879.43.1 and not be included in 2.5.59?

The way I understood it is that when Linus merges "stuff", this "stuff"
gets a changeset number in the future, not in the past. No matter if the
"stuff" was created in the past. Is this the case or not?

I mean, somehow there must be a way to number the changesets so that
applying them in order generates something coherent.

Andrea