Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p05111700b963180b03ed@[10.2.6.42]>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:31:04 +0200
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From: Matthias Urlichs <smurf@noris.de>
Subject: Re: using bitkeeper to backport subsystems?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1029
Lines: 26

Lars:
>   Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com> said:
>  > Thanks, we agree completely.  It's actually an impossible problem
>  > for a program since it requires semantic knowledge of the content
>  > under revision control.
>
>  So, another option would be to have the developer define explicit 
>dependencies
>  for his changesets, but I fear that might prove to cumbersome, too.
>
If you spend the effort to do _that_, you might as well clone your BK 
tree and prune it back to a state which conceivably has only the 
changes which you depend on.

Another problem with that approach, however, is that if everybody 
does it then the kernel's version tree, as evident in "bk revtool", 
gets totally unreadable. It is already an order of magnitude too 
complicated.  :-(

-- 
Matthias Urlichs
-
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/