From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263769AbTLOQYI (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:24:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263771AbTLOQYI (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:24:08 -0500 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.224.249]:1740 "EHLO main.gmane.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263769AbTLOQYG (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:24:06 -0500 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Sergey Vlasov Subject: Re: RFC - tarball/patch server in BitKeeper Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:24:02 +0300 Message-ID: <20031215192402.528ce066.vsu@altlinux.ru> References: <20031214172156.GA16554@work.bitmover.com> <2259130000.1071469863@[10.10.2.4]> <20031215151126.3fe6e97a.vsu@altlinux.ru> <20031215132720.GX7308@phunnypharm.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Newsreader: Sylpheed version 0.9.6 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i586-alt-linux-gnu) Cc: bitkeeper-users@bitmover.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:27:20 -0500 Ben Collins wrote: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 03:11:26PM +0300, Sergey Vlasov wrote: > > I see another missing feature - there does not seem to be a way to > > order the changesets by the order of merging them into the tree. E.g. > > when you look at the linux-2.4 changesets, you will now find XFS all > > over the place - even before 2.4.23, while it really has been merged > > after 2.4.23. > > You don't seem to understand how bitkeeper works then. Back when the XFS > tree was cloned from the 2.4 tree, it began it's own "branch". Over time > it has merged code from the 2.4 tree, and it's work has occured over > this same time. > > When XFS was merged back into the 2.4 tree, it retains all of that > history in sort of a split road looking branch/merge. Keeping that history is good. But the main 2.4 branch also has its own history - and it shows that there were no XFS code in that branch up to and including 2.4.23. There does not seem to be a way to get this information - at least through bkbits.net.