Re: BKCVS issue

From: Ben Collins (
Date: Mon Jun 02 2003 - 18:39:01 EST

On Mon, Jun 02, 2003 at 07:37:02PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Monday 02 June 2003 17:14, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > For the past few days, it seems like every time something changes in
> > BK, the bkcvs repository has all of its files touched. At least, all
> > files in the repository have a P preceding their names on a cvs up.
> >
> > It's not intolerable, but I was wondering if anyone's aware of it.
> CVS thinks of changes as having been applied in a certain order, with each
> cange applying to the result of previous changes.
> Bitkeeper does not. Each change applies to a historical version of the tree,
> and when it gets two sets of changes based on the same historical tree
> neither one of them goes "before" the other, they both apply to the old tree.
> (This isn't a linear process, it's lots and lots of branches. Conflicts
> don't come up at this point, think quantum indeterminacy and the trousers of
> time and all that.)

bkcvs doesn't do this. It can't. There's no way for CVS to represent
what BK does. bkcvs is instead linear, but some commits are groups of
changesets instead of single changesets.

The problem is that bkcvs 2.5 is broken. Larry has said he will fix it,
time permitting.

Debian     -
Linux 1394 -
Subversion -
Deqo       -
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 07 2003 - 22:00:18 EST