Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261197AbUJYSV6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:21:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261161AbUJYSUJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:20:09 -0400 Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.205]:35029 "EHLO rproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261160AbUJYSSo (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:18:44 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=U/nCLo9P4Uy/jRkjy1AkWr3CDHetVxovNB9ka6LXv4SkYOtBr56/Qq067Pb5jaOmRRqXetHH/sqO36zVMtkTFMX3KR+INz3YMNKWGW/tGHDjZ+h35G/LW9L5+nU+BgVRPZQD2Qf/zUJYNVOG7xBo0X0vshnVbQm6jMxaG1uSYyQ= Message-ID: <9e47339104102511182f916705@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:18:43 -0400 From: Jon Smirl Reply-To: Jon Smirl To: Linux Kernel , Larry McVoy , akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: BK kernel workflow In-Reply-To: <20041025162022.GA27979@work.bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <4d8e3fd3041019145469f03527@mail.gmail.com> <20041023161253.GA17537@work.bitmover.com> <4d8e3fd304102403241e5a69a5@mail.gmail.com> <20041024144448.GA575@work.bitmover.com> <4d8e3fd304102409443c01c5da@mail.gmail.com> <20041024233214.GA9772@work.bitmover.com> <20041025114641.GU14325@dualathlon.random> <1098707342.7355.44.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20041025133951.GW14325@dualathlon.random> <20041025162022.GA27979@work.bitmover.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1043 Lines: 22 On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 09:20:22 -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > That's strange, I wonder why you think BK doesn't help. The prevailing > wisdom is that it has helped. It's well documented by third parties > who have nothing to do with you or me. >From what I see BitKeeper has definitely helped the kernel development processes. On the other hand BitKeeper has been stable for the last couple of years. Are we going to see any large changes in BK any time soon? For example BK could be extended to handle the workflow AndrewM does. Another extension would be for moving signed patches through the system to help avoid another SCO problem. Any hints on where the future is going? Can BK be extended to further automate the kernel development workflow? -- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@gmail.com - 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/