From: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
To: Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org>
Cc: Aaron Lehmann <aaronl@vitelus.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BKCVS issue
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 20:50:51 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200306022050.51909.rob@landley.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030602233901.GT10102@phunnypharm.org>
On Monday 02 June 2003 19:39, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 07:37:02PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Monday 02 June 2003 17:14, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > > For the past few days, it seems like every time something changes in
> > > BK, the bkcvs repository has all of its files touched. At least, all
> > > files in the repository have a P preceding their names on a cvs up.
> > >
> > > It's not intolerable, but I was wondering if anyone's aware of it.
> >
> > CVS thinks of changes as having been applied in a certain order, with
> > each cange applying to the result of previous changes.
> >
> > Bitkeeper does not. Each change applies to a historical version of the
> > tree, and when it gets two sets of changes based on the same historical
> > tree neither one of them goes "before" the other, they both apply to the
> > old tree. (This isn't a linear process, it's lots and lots of branches.
> > Conflicts don't come up at this point, think quantum indeterminacy and
> > the trousers of time and all that.)
>
> bkcvs doesn't do this. It can't. There's no way for CVS to represent
> what BK does. bkcvs is instead linear, but some commits are groups of
> changesets instead of single changesets.
>
> The problem is that bkcvs 2.5 is broken. Larry has said he will fix it,
> time permitting.
I was under the impression that the problem in bkcvs was a design issue: it
converted a BK repository to a CVS repository by creating a fresh CVS
repository from scratch each time. It didn't modify an existing CVS
repository, which would be a bit more work.
It's not impossible, I suppose. If you can feed bk the tree version that the
old CVS was created against, there's existing logic to create create a
gnu-style patch that gets the tree from point B to point C. The only problem
with creating a series of CVS entries instead of a patch is keeping the
changes seperate when you do it...
Dunno how big a problem that is, I haven't looked at the BK source. I'd like
to keep my options open if I decide to work on subversion or some such in the
future. :)
Rob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-06-03 0:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-06-02 21:14 BKCVS issue Aaron Lehmann
2003-06-02 23:37 ` Rob Landley
2003-06-02 23:39 ` Ben Collins
2003-06-03 0:50 ` Rob Landley [this message]
2003-06-03 0:03 ` Ben Collins
2003-06-03 0:37 ` Aaron Lehmann
2003-06-03 2:28 ` Larry McVoy
2003-06-03 6:56 ` Jasper Spaans
2003-06-05 20:54 ` Larry McVoy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200306022050.51909.rob@landley.net \
--to=rob@landley.net \
--cc=aaronl@vitelus.com \
--cc=bcollins@debian.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox