Re: RFC - tarball/patch server in BitKeeper

Andrea Arcangeli
2003-12-15T19:40:14Z

On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 10:58:39AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 07:31:38PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > you get the 2.4 branch linear history via bkcvs. Though there you lose
> > all the granular xfs development changesets instead, the xfs merge
> > becames a huge monolithic patch see below. Either way or another you
> > lose information compared to true BK. From my part I'm fine with the
> > info provided in bkcvs, I'm only correcting Larry statement about him
> > providing lots of way to get at the data in a interoperable protocol,
> > he's only providing _partial_ data in a interoperable way. I'm stating
> > facts, no whining intendend.
>
> You can get at the full patch level granularity via BK/Web, on bkbits,
> complete with checkin comments, diffs, whatever you want. There isn't
> any more information to give you that is not internal BK information
> which is covered by trade secret. We have every right to not provide
> you with information about how BitKeeper works and we've already provided
> the data in multiple ways.
>
> - You have an open export of the data into bkcvs, this addressed the "I'm not
> using BK so I'm at a disadvantage" problem

the open export lacks some granular information this is a fact. that's
fine with me though.

> - You have patch by patch access to the data at bkbits.net for all
> repositories, this addressed the "I want the fine granularity of
> individual patches" problem.

I think it's reasonable to write an automated tool that generates all
the granular info for the big merges by doing a lookup on the web for
every single bkcvs changeset, I did something similar already but I
missed the linearization of bkcvs, not maybe it could have a chance to
work. But the last time I attempted to use the web as a "fetch" tool,
not as a "browsing tool with a browser with an human behind" you said if
we would use it that way you would shut it down, that doesn't match my
definition of interoperability or availability very well.

> - I've offered up the tarball+patch update protocol to address the "I'm
> not
> using BK so I can't easily track the latest version of J Random tree"
> problem.

that's an enterely different issue, don't mix things up. That loses
*tons* of information, much more than bkcvs, I'm not even considering
it. that's only useful to projects where the developers don't even
supply tarballs and patches anymore if I understood correctly. On the
kernel we've the bkcvs that doesn't lose that much of information, so I
don't see any use for this tool on the kernel side.