[OT] "bk pull" does not update my sources...?

[OT] "bk pull" does not update my sources...?

[Christian]

hi,

being a beginner with Bitkeeper repositories i used to "clone" 
bk://linux.bkbits.net/linux-2.5 to my disk, then did "bk -r get" (as 
advised elsewhere) and do "bk pull" every now and then. but i noted the 
following:

evil@sheep:/usr/src/linux-2.6-BK$ date
Fr Mai 14 21:09:51 CEST 2004
evil@sheep:/usr/src/linux-2.6-BK$ bk pull
Pull bk://linux.bkbits.net/linux-2.5
   -> file://usr/src/linux-2.6-BK
Nothing to pull.
evil@sheep:/usr/src/linux-2.6-BK$ head -n5 Makefile
VERSION = 2
PATCHLEVEL = 6
SUBLEVEL = 6
EXTRAVERSION =
NAME=Zonked Quokka
evil@sheep:/usr/src/linux-2.6-BK$

on kernel.org there is already a 2.6.6-bk1 snapshot-patch, it'd patch 
Makefile to show us "-bk1", but my local repository -just updated via 
bk- does still say "2.6.6". how comes?

i tried "bk co|get Makfefile", "bk check"...all seems to be well.

Thanks for helping,
Christian.

(ps: pm is also fine, as this is admittedly not a kernel-thing....)

-- 
BOFH excuse #3:

electromagnetic radiation from satellite debris

Re: [OT] "bk pull" does not update my sources...?

[walt]

Christian wrote:
> hi,
> 
> being a beginner with Bitkeeper repositories i used to "clone" 
> bk://linux.bkbits.net/linux-2.5 to my disk, then did "bk -r get" (as 
> advised elsewhere) and do "bk pull" every now and then. but i noted the 
> following:
> 
> evil@sheep:/usr/src/linux-2.6-BK$ date
> Fr Mai 14 21:09:51 CEST 2004
> evil@sheep:/usr/src/linux-2.6-BK$ bk pull
> Pull bk://linux.bkbits.net/linux-2.5
>   -> file://usr/src/linux-2.6-BK
> Nothing to pull.
> evil@sheep:/usr/src/linux-2.6-BK$ head -n5 Makefile
> VERSION = 2
> PATCHLEVEL = 6
> SUBLEVEL = 6
> EXTRAVERSION =

This is correct.  Linus does not include the 'bk' in the 'extraversion' field.
Doing a 'bk pull' will always get you the most recent changes.  If you see the
'Nothing to pull' message then Linus has not posted any changes since the last
time you pulled.

Everything seems OK so far.

Re: [OT] "bk pull" does not update my sources...?

[Christian Kujau]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

walt schrieb:
|> evil@sheep:/usr/src/linux-2.6-BK$ head -n5 Makefile
|> VERSION = 2
|> PATCHLEVEL = 6
|> SUBLEVEL = 6
|> EXTRAVERSION =
|
| This is correct.  Linus does not include the 'bk' in the 'extraversion'
| field.

so, the Makefile from the -bk snapshots (e.g. patch-2.6.6-bk1.bz2) was
edited and will show an EXTRAVERSION of "-bk1", while the original
Makefile does not? this is insane!

Thanks,
Christian.
- --
BOFH excuse #163:

no "any" key on keyboard
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFAp6FE+A7rjkF8z0wRAmpiAJ90352ybw4mL1qkjw1Kfk5Z/uOw+wCg0AtI
SJ0x6ASWWWwSAkIRJJkLglg=
=86dB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [OT] "bk pull" does not update my sources...?

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Sun, 16 May 2004 19:13:41 +0200 Christian Kujau <evil@g-house.de> wrote:

| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
| Hash: SHA1
| 
| walt schrieb:
| |> evil@sheep:/usr/src/linux-2.6-BK$ head -n5 Makefile
| |> VERSION = 2
| |> PATCHLEVEL = 6
| |> SUBLEVEL = 6
| |> EXTRAVERSION =
| |
| | This is correct.  Linus does not include the 'bk' in the 'extraversion'
| | field.
| 
| so, the Makefile from the -bk snapshots (e.g. patch-2.6.6-bk1.bz2) was
| edited and will show an EXTRAVERSION of "-bk1", while the original
| Makefile does not? this is insane!

Right.  The bk tree does not contain -bkN or anything in the
EXTRAVERSION string.  The bk snapshots do add that string.

I don't find it hard to keep them separated, but, yeah, that's the
way it is.

--
~Randy

Re: [OT] "bk pull" does not update my sources...?

[Christian Kujau]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Randy.Dunlap schrieb:
| Right.  The bk tree does not contain -bkN or anything in the
| EXTRAVERSION string.  The bk snapshots do add that string.
|

hm, okay then. Thank you all for clearing things up.

Christian.

- --
BOFH excuse #402:

Secretary sent chain letter to all 5000 employees.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFAp7XZ+A7rjkF8z0wRAtirAJ9Uv2nsXcQkblcItV+XrXr/EaoSNQCgh8PG
6gRlzLutW5dAjirpDsj4dFw=
=qXhI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [OT] "bk pull" does not update my sources...?

[Andy Isaacson]

On Sun, May 16, 2004 at 10:29:36AM -0700, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> On Sun, 16 May 2004 19:13:41 +0200 Christian Kujau <evil@g-house.de> wrote:
> | walt schrieb:
> | |> evil@sheep:/usr/src/linux-2.6-BK$ head -n5 Makefile
> | |> VERSION = 2
> | |> PATCHLEVEL = 6
> | |> SUBLEVEL = 6
> | |> EXTRAVERSION =
> | |
> | | This is correct.  Linus does not include the 'bk' in the 'extraversion'
> | | field.
> | 
> | so, the Makefile from the -bk snapshots (e.g. patch-2.6.6-bk1.bz2) was
> | edited and will show an EXTRAVERSION of "-bk1", while the original
> | Makefile does not? this is insane!
> 
> Right.  The bk tree does not contain -bkN or anything in the
> EXTRAVERSION string.  The bk snapshots do add that string.
> 
> I don't find it hard to keep them separated, but, yeah, that's the
> way it is.

Perhaps a kernel built from BK sources should have the :UTC: or :MD5KEY:
in the version output.  "bk changes -r+ -d:UTC:" is the command to get
the current UTC string; that's an all-numeric representation of the date
of the current top cset.

The downside is that if you just do something like
BKEXTRAVERSION := `bk changes -r+ -d:UTC:`
then there is no way to distinguish "clean, everything corresponds to
BK" from "I edited some files, or applied a patch, and haven't created a
cset yet".  Of course you can do something like "bk -r diffs -u|wc -l"
to get an indication of diff size, but that's pretty hackish.

-andy