[OT] linux.bkbits.net

[OT] linux.bkbits.net

[Ihar 'Philips' Filipau]

Hi!

   It is rather strange to 'bk pull http://linux.bkbits.net/linux-2.5' 
and to find in Makefile:

VERSION = 2
PATCHLEVEL = 6
SUBLEVEL = 0
EXTRAVERSION =

   Or it is only me who finds this strange?

   When transition from 2.5 to 2.6 is planned?
   After all stable branch deserve to have NOT odd version number :)

-- 
Ihar 'Philips' Filipau  / with best regards from Saarbruecken.
--                                                           _ _ _
  Because the kernel depends on it existing. "init"          |_|*|_|
  literally _is_ special from a kernel standpoint,           |_|_|*|
  because its' the "reaper of zombies" (and, may I add,      |*|*|*|
  that would be a great name for a rock band).
                                 -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [OT] linux.bkbits.net

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 11:37:09AM +0100, Ihar 'Philips' Filipau wrote:
>   It is rather strange to 'bk pull http://linux.bkbits.net/linux-2.5' 
> and to find in Makefile:
> VERSION = 2
> PATCHLEVEL = 6
> SUBLEVEL = 0
> EXTRAVERSION =
>   Or it is only me who finds this strange?
>   When transition from 2.5 to 2.6 is planned?
>   After all stable branch deserve to have NOT odd version number :)

You may have missed Linus' announcement: 2.6.0 has been released.


-- wli

Re: [OT] linux.bkbits.net

[Ihar 'Philips' Filipau]

William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 11:37:09AM +0100, Ihar 'Philips' Filipau wrote:
> 
>>  It is rather strange to 'bk pull http://linux.bkbits.net/linux-2.5' 
>>and to find in Makefile:
>>VERSION = 2
>>PATCHLEVEL = 6
>>SUBLEVEL = 0
>>EXTRAVERSION =
>>  Or it is only me who finds this strange?
>>  When transition from 2.5 to 2.6 is planned?
>>  After all stable branch deserve to have NOT odd version number :)
> 
> 
> You may have missed Linus' announcement: 2.6.0 has been released.
> 

   Yes. No. Br-r-r-r.
   I'm not about Linux kernel version.

   I'm about its name in BK :-)

-- 
Ihar 'Philips' Filipau  / with best regards from Saarbruecken.
--                                                           _ _ _
  Because the kernel depends on it existing. "init"          |_|*|_|
  literally _is_ special from a kernel standpoint,           |_|_|*|
  because its' the "reaper of zombies" (and, may I add,      |*|*|*|
  that would be a great name for a rock band).
                                 -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [OT] linux.bkbits.net

[William Lee Irwin III]

William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> You may have missed Linus' announcement: 2.6.0 has been released.

On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 11:50:30AM +0100, Ihar 'Philips' Filipau wrote:
>   Yes. No. Br-r-r-r.
>   I'm not about Linux kernel version.
>   I'm about its name in BK :-)

No idea why it hasn't been renamed. It might have something to do with
bk parent having to be retargeted at all points downstream.


-- wli

Re: [OT] linux.bkbits.net

[Tupshin Harper]

William Lee Irwin III wrote:

>On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 11:37:09AM +0100, Ihar 'Philips' Filipau wrote:
>  
>
>>  It is rather strange to 'bk pull http://linux.bkbits.net/linux-2.5' 
>>and to find in Makefile:
>>VERSION = 2
>>PATCHLEVEL = 6
>>SUBLEVEL = 0
>>EXTRAVERSION =
>>  Or it is only me who finds this strange?
>>  When transition from 2.5 to 2.6 is planned?
>>  After all stable branch deserve to have NOT odd version number :)
>>    
>>
>
>You may have missed Linus' announcement: 2.6.0 has been released.
>
>
>-- wli
>  
>
Uh...no. He's talking about the fact that it is conceptually odd to pull 
a 2.6(final) linux from a 2.5 URL. That's all.

-Tupshin

Re: [OT] linux.bkbits.net

[William Lee Irwin III]

William Lee Irwin III wrote:
>> You may have missed Linus' announcement: 2.6.0 has been released.

On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 02:50:31AM -0800, Tupshin Harper wrote:
> Uh...no. He's talking about the fact that it is conceptually odd to pull 
> a 2.6(final) linux from a 2.5 URL. That's all.
> -Tupshin

bk pull doesn't require an argument; it defaults to using the stored
parent repository. So "normally" the name of the repository wouldn't
be seen or given at all. If it moved, it would cause an error when
the parent repository could not be found.

Regardless of whether the state of affairs under discussion is altered,
the above is why it wasn't a consideration in my original reply.


-- wli

Re: [OT] linux.bkbits.net

[Måns Rullgård]

William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com> writes:

> On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 11:37:09AM +0100, Ihar 'Philips' Filipau wrote:
>>   It is rather strange to 'bk pull http://linux.bkbits.net/linux-2.5' 
>> and to find in Makefile:
>> VERSION = 2
>> PATCHLEVEL = 6
>> SUBLEVEL = 0
>> EXTRAVERSION =
>>   Or it is only me who finds this strange?
>>   When transition from 2.5 to 2.6 is planned?
>>   After all stable branch deserve to have NOT odd version number :)
>
> You may have missed Linus' announcement: 2.6.0 has been released.

That's the point.  The kernel version is 2.6.0, but the bitkeeper
repository is called linux-2.5.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mru@kth.se

Re: [OT] linux.bkbits.net

[Muli Ben-Yehuda]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 914 bytes --]

On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 02:40:50AM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 11:37:09AM +0100, Ihar 'Philips' Filipau wrote:
> >   It is rather strange to 'bk pull http://linux.bkbits.net/linux-2.5' 
> > and to find in Makefile:
> > VERSION = 2
> > PATCHLEVEL = 6
> > SUBLEVEL = 0
> > EXTRAVERSION =
> >   Or it is only me who finds this strange?
> >   When transition from 2.5 to 2.6 is planned?
> >   After all stable branch deserve to have NOT odd version number :)
> 
> You may have missed Linus' announcement: 2.6.0 has been released.

It's not entirely clear, but I parsed the original message as "isn't
it strange that the *repository* is named linux-2.5? when will it be
switched to being named linux-2.6?"

Cheers, 
Muli 
-- 
Muli Ben-Yehuda
http://www.mulix.org | http://mulix.livejournal.com/

"the nucleus of linux oscillates my world" - gccbot@#offtopic


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]