Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:57:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:57:08 -0500 Received: from inti.inf.utfsm.cl ([200.1.21.155]:13189 "EHLO inti.inf.utfsm.cl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:57:07 -0500 Message-Id: <200303090206.h2926a8W004185@eeyore.valparaiso.cl> To: Pavel Machek cc: Olivier Galibert , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: BitBucket: GPL-ed KitBeeper clone In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 07 Mar 2003 20:08:48 BST." <20030307190848.GB21023@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 23:06:36 -0300 From: Horst von Brand Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1163 Lines: 25 Pavel Machek said: [...] > So, basically, if branch was killed and recreated after each merge > from mainline, problem would be solved, right? Who is branch, who is mainline? The branch owner _will_ be pissed off if his head version changes each time he syncronizes. What if mainline dies, and the official line moves to one of the branches? What happens when there aren't just two, but a dozen developers swizzling individual csets from each other (not necesarily just resyncing with each other)? If said developers also apply random patches from a common mailing list? This is _much_ harder than it looks on the surface. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513 - 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/