Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

[Michael Ellerman]

Rob Landley <rob@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> On 05/11/2017 01:59 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 
>>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Eric W. Biederman
>>> <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thomas Gleixner appears to have a tree with all of those same commits
>>>> except with the BKrev tags stripped out.
>>>
>>> That's the best import - so use that tree by Thomas, and just use the
>>> git revision numbers in it (and say "tglx's linux-history tree" or
>>> something).
>> 
>> I've been using this one by Rob Landley which seems good:
>> 
>> https://landley.net/kdocs/fullhist/
>>
>> It's grafted into the modern history so you can search seamlessly
>> between the two which is pretty nice. I don't see any Bitkeeper tags
>> though.
>
> I went through and found/tagged the major old releases, did I forget to
> upload a new tarball after that?

No you didn't forget, I see several:

  refs/tags/v1.2.0
  refs/tags/v2.6.0
  refs/tags/v4.5-rc3
  refs/tags/v2.4.0
  refs/tags/v1.0.0
  refs/tags/v2.2.0
  refs/tags/v2.0.0
  refs/tags/v4.5-rc4
  refs/tags/v4.5-rc5
  refs/tags/v4.5-rc2
  refs/tags/v0.0.1
  refs/tags/v4.5-rc1


But in the original mail Eric was wanting to refer to a specific
Bitkeeper revision using the BK revision id, eg:

  Fixes: BKrev: 3e8e57a1JvR25MkFRNzoz85l2Gzccg ("[PATCH] linux-2.5.66-signal-cleanup.patch")

In your tree that is c3c107051660 ("[PATCH] linux-2.5.66-signal-cleanup.patch"),
but you don't have the 3e8e57a1JvR25MkFRNzoz85l2Gzccg revision recorded
anywhere that I can see.

cheers