Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 12:09:03PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > it might be simply an error in the tarball, maybe Linus's tree isn't in
> > > full sync with bk head. But something definitely is corrupt between
> > > tarball and bk.
> >
> > Well, the 2.5.59 BK tree shows that function using block_truncate_page() as
> > well.
> >
> > The question is why did the Jan 9 changeset in the 2.5.55 timeframe not
> > appear in the tree until post-2.5.59. Maybe on Jan 9 Linus only part-merged
> > it by some means (making the web interface claim it is there), and this week
> > completed the merge and updated the checkin comment?
>
> I don't know how it is supposed to work, but this sounds quite messy, if
> this is the case, how can you order the changesets?
>
Dave says that the Jan 9 date was when he committed it locally. It
was pushed to Linus this week, and the tracking shows Dave's date,
not Linus's.
I didn't know Dave was using bitkeeper. Sorry noise.
-
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 : Fri Feb 07 2003 - 22:00:18 EST