Subject: Re: linuxppc trees, what is going on ?

From: Tom Rini <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2004 10:43:30 -0700

On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 06:30:00PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 10:22:51AM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > > Yeah, but the point is, i am not sure if i am the person most
> > > appropriate to checking which of all those changeset are needed or not.
> > > A proper tagging would be much more appropriate, and make for easy
> > > reference when getting feedback and such.
> >
> > A proper tagging, for distribution use, isn't possible 100% of the time.
> > For example, if the tree goes from v2.4.29 to v2.4.30-pre1 to
> > v2.4.30-pre2 all while myself/Paul/Ben are on vacation, theres no way
> > to bring the bitkeeper tree, as of v2.4.30-pre1 and v2.4.30-pre2 into
> > linuxppc-2.4 and make a tag for each.  Likewise, if we don't grab the
> > bitkeeper tree at exactly v2.4.30-pre2, we can't make a tag that
> > corresponds to exactly that.
>
> Ohh. So this should be attributed to bitkeeper brokeness then ?

I think it's just a design issue.  You can't export as a bitkeeper tree
a bitkeeper tree at a given revision because it would be too much work,
or something.  I don't know for certain.  Can anyone on the
bitkeepr-users list shed some light on why there's no 'bk export -tbk' ?
Or is there a functional equivalent that I don't know?

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/