Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 07:02:28PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>>David Lang wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Just curious, this also means that at least around the 80% of merges
>>>>in Linus's tree is submitted via a bitkeeper pull, right?
>>>>
>>>>Andrea
>>>
>>>
>>>remember how Linus works, all normal patches get copied into a single
>>>large patch file as he reads his mail then he runs patch to apply them to
>>>the tree. I think this would make the entire batch of messages look like
>>>one cset.
>>
>>
>>Not correct. His commits properly separate the patches out into
>>individual csets.
>
>
> and they're unusable as source to regenerate a tree. I had similar
> issues with the web too. to make use of the single csets you need to
> implement the internal bitkeeper branching knowledge too. Not to tell
> apparently the cset numbers changes all the time.
The "weave", or order of csets, certainly changes each time Linus does a
'bk pull'. I wonder if a 'cset_order' file would be useful -- an
automated job uses BK to export the weave for a specific point in time.
One could use that to glue the csets together, perhaps?
WRT cset numbers, ignore them. Each cset has a unique key. When
setting up the 2.5 snapshot cron job, Linus asked me to export this key
so that the definitive top-of-tree may be identified, regardless of cset
number. Here is an example:
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.5/snapshots/patch-2.5.63-bk6.key
Jeff
-
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 07 2003 - 22:00:23 EST