lm@bitmover.com said:
> If you get into a duplicate patch situation, you are far better off to
> pick one tree or the other tree as the official tree, and cherrypick
> the changes that the unofficial tree has and place them in the
> official tree. Then toss the unofficial tree. I can make you a "bk
> portpatch" command which does this, we have that already, it needs a
> bit of updating to catch the comments.
That's essentially what I had to write to move my trees over, so an official
one would be extremely useful. I do have the piece which catches the comments
if you want it.
jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com said:
> So, knowing that duplicate patches are a bad thing helps not in the
> least here...
If bitkeeper had a way of replacing duplicate patches, this would be extremely
useful. All I really needed to do was replace the keys in the changelog from
the garzik tree with the mareclo one to get my changes moved over. I think
essentially this could be done with a bk send|bk receive as long as I can tell
bitkeeper that it needs a substitute set of keys when applying the bkpatch.
James
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 23 2002 - 22:00:12 EST