Re: RFC - tarball/patch server in BitKeeper

Sergey Vlasov
2003-12-15T16:24:08Z

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.