Re: A modest proposal -- We need a patch penguin

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 08:37:56AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > Er, not the pristine tree, the linuxppc_2_4 tree, sorry.  I'll try
> > again.  One of the problems we hit frequently is that we have to move
> > files from linuxppc_2_4_devel into linuxppc_2_4, once they prove stable.
> > But just creating a normal patch, or cp'ing the files means when we pull
> > linuxppc_2_4 back into linuxppc_2_4_devel we get a file conflict, and
> > have to move one of the files (the previously existing one) into the
> > deleted dir.  How do we cleanly move just a few files from a child tree
> > into the parent?  I think this is a lot like what would happen, if Linus
> > used BK and we wanted to send him support for some platforms, but not
> > all of the other changes we have.
> 
> BitKeeper is like a distributed, replicated file system with atomic changes.
> That has certain advantages, much like a database.  What you are asking 
> violates the database rules, if I understand you properly.  Are you asking
> to move part of a changeset?  That's a no no, that's like moving the 
> increment to your bank account without the decrement to mine; the banks
> frown on that :-)
> 
> Or are you asking more about the out of order stuff, i.e., whole changesets
> are fine but not all of them.

Unfortunatly I think the PPC tree has hit both cases :)  The restriction
that everything gets moved as a changeset is fine tho. One problem is
an out-of-order (or rather a single) changeset which creates a few
files.

The other problem is we create a file (say
arch/ppc/kernel/prpmc750_setup.c) and then 4-5 changesets effect this
file (code, code, bk mv, code, code).  If this is doable in multiple
out-of-order sends to the parent, that'd probably be OK.

-- 
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/