On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Pau Aliagas wrote:
>
> > I'd recommend everybody to give arch a try.
>
> If you could setup a public arch repository of the 2.4 / 2.5
> kernel of which everybody can copy/clone their arch kernel
> repository, that would be a good start.
It is not necessary to setup a central repository.
We need a reference archive to keep in sync with; then everybody branches
from there and syncs back and forth. The reference archive would be the
official kernel branch.
You could then have public archives to share your patchsets. And access
other's archives who you are interested in staying in sync with.
> Even better would be an arch kernel repository that is kept
> up-to-date (automatically?) or gated from the bitkeeper tree.
We only need to update to the latest kernel to have the repository
updated, nothing else. You commit the patchset as "patch-2.5.6" and that's
it. Then you grep you kernel25--rik and apply the changes from the
official branch automatically, reconciling differences. Once you want to
"export" your changes to Linus, you export it in one or more patchsets.
> That would give us some real way to compare the two tools.
It seems obvious that bitkeeper is in very good shape; I'm not at all
against people using, but I'm sure that if a few people tried arch, they'd
be gratefully surprised. Testing and improvement is needed and very
welcome as well as kernel hackers aiming to try it.
Pau
-
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 : Fri Mar 15 2002 - 22:00:09 EST