Re: [PATCH] struct page, new bk tree

From: Jeff Garzik (jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com)
Date: Wed Feb 20 2002 - 15:26:36 EST


Ed Tomlinson wrote:
>
> In my opinion the idea of cset -x (while usefull) is fundamentally
> broken. The result of this is that ideas like blacklist need to be
> considered. I would propose instead an undo -x, that would
> generate a cset to reverse the one following the -x. This might
> lead to conflicts - these would be resolved the normal bk fashion.
> If bk handled ¯bad¯ csets in this manner there would be no need for
> blacklists - it is more robust in that you can always used undo -x.

Well, if the changes are properly split up, you shouldn't need to do
this... In the ideal situation it is easiest for Linus to accept or
reject a "bk pull" in its entirety. Then he can just do a "bk unpull"

        Jeff

-- 
Jeff Garzik      | "Why is it that attractive girls like you
Building 1024    |  always seem to have a boyfriend?"
MandrakeSoft     | "Because I'm a nympho that owns a brewery?"
                 |             - BBC TV show "Coupling"
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 21:00:27 EST