Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:39:59 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:39:49 -0500 Received: from [63.231.122.81] ([63.231.122.81]:23592 "EHLO lynx.adilger.int") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 13:39:38 -0500 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 11:38:48 -0700 From: Andreas Dilger To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Jeff Garzik , Patrick Mochel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [bk patch] Make cardbus compile in -pre4 Message-ID: <20020211113848.H9826@lynx.turbolabs.com> Mail-Followup-To: Linus Torvalds , Jeff Garzik , Patrick Mochel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20020210004748.G9826@lynx.turbolabs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from torvalds@transmeta.com on Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 12:57:11PM -0800 X-GPG-Key: 1024D/0D35BED6 X-GPG-Fingerprint: 7A37 5D79 BF1B CECA D44F 8A29 A488 39F5 0D35 BED6 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Feb 10, 2002 12:57 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, 10 Feb 2002, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > What about BK CSET (or regular patch) submissions from non-core > > developers? Would you accept CSETs via email if they are preceeded > > by a unified diff and explanation? > > I have worked with a few BK patches in email, and I have to say that I > pretty much detest them. The less I have to work with them, the better, > although that may just because I don't yet have the same kind of > infrastructure for them as I have for regulat patches. > > (But _please_ do a "bk send" to a file, and edit the file before you send > it, instead of sending directly with that "Bitkeeper patch" subject line. > It looks like "bk send" was really designed for automatic merges, not for > humans) Yes, the first time I used "bk send" to send something directly to Ted it happened that I was offline so I looked into my mail spool at the emails and also hated it. What I was proposing instead of just "bk send" is to prepend the changelog entry, a real unified diff, and gzip_uu CSET at the end. Larry has agreed that "bk send -d -wgzip_uu" wrapping the diff part of the patch is a bug to be fixed. So, instead of the current layout of "'This is a BitKeeper patch' comment + commented-out diff + BK stuff", I would send "CSET ChangeLog + unified diff + gzip_uu wrapped BK stuff". This would be the output of (probably in a script): bk changes -r bk export -tpatch -h -du -r bk send -wgzip_uu -r - For example, your recent 2.5.4 release would look like the below, and I _think_ you could just accept this with "bk receive -a [repository path]", but I'm not sure how good the BK heuristics are for finding a CSET at the end of a long patch. I'm only skeptical because the current "bk send" output comments out the diff part of the output. ChangeSet@1.262, 2002-02-10 19:24:03-08:00, torvalds@home.transmeta.com update version TAG: v2.5.4 diff -Nru a/Makefile b/Makefile --- a/Makefile Mon Feb 11 10:44:32 2002 +++ b/Makefile Mon Feb 11 10:44:32 2002 @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ VERSION = 2 PATCHLEVEL = 5 SUBLEVEL = 4 -EXTRAVERSION =-pre6 +EXTRAVERSION = KERNELRELEASE=$(VERSION).$(PATCHLEVEL).$(SUBLEVEL)$(EXTRAVERSION) This BitKeeper patch contains the following changesets: 1.262 ## Wrapped with gzip_uu ## begin 664 bkpatch3560 M'XL(`!\#:#P``[V4T6[;(!2&K\-3(/5RLG,.!H(M>5K71ENU=8V<==HMLFEL MU;$K0[)6\L./6%U255.R1-LP<,'!1X?OY^>,WEK3)2-=5/7"=.2,?FRM2T;U M4_,8/B^&5>-\(&M;'QBO;#>V73ZNJV;U&+!0$!^;:9>7=&TZFXPPC+8K[NG! M)*-L^N'V\WE&2)K2BU(W"S,WCJ8I<6VWUG5AWVE7UFT3NDXW=FF<#O-VV6^W M]@R`^4_@)`(A>Y3`)WV.!:+F:`I@7$F^RU:V2W,@%R(@CQGO47$AR"7%D$E& M@8U]1Z`8)XPG$`6@$@"Z)S5]@S0`\I[^W<-9//:( M<8AZ%))+HO+':+_:'G7:4WGM%>ZVWG[B*X@VR"1MLAE*=;#/\3S8;+N<-#;H?0_=` M9UN:)XAQR2F2J\TT_?XU._\VS>97-U]HNGLY\]+D]W:U3/%.