Re: Linux 2.4 and BitKeeper

[Larry McVoy]

> But the thing is that if you do it my way, you _can_ have it both ways.
> 
> If you do it your way, you cannot.

By "your way" you mean "the current way", right?  In which case, the future
option I described is OK, right?  Or am I still missing something?

> Note that there is another way to do all this too: it would be quite nice
> (and probably not too hard) to create a filesystem that exports a BK
> archive, so that you could do something like
> 
> 	mount -o ro -tbk /home/BK/repository/xxxx xxx

I already did this a long time ago, and how the files are stored is completely
orthogonal.  I used the user level NFS server and you could do a 

	mount -o ro,rev=v.2.5.5 -tnfs /home/BK/repository/xxxx v2.5.5

and it worked just fine.  I personally hate this because there is no way that
I have ever seen to make filesystem semantics == SCM semantics.  It turns into
a hack for read/write.  If it made you happy to do this for read only, hey,
there's a nice newbie project.

> > 
> > One gotcha, and we'll fix this now that I think of it, is that this only
> > greps the revision history.
> 
> Oh, I've tried exactly that, and it doesn't work at all for a few reasons. 
> 
> Try
> 
> 	bk -r grep torvalds

Whoops, sorry, try it with -Ur, the -U says "user files only, skip the BK crud"

bk -Ur grep torvalds
CREDITS 1.1     E: [e-mail]
README  1.1        them to me ([e-mail]), and possibly to any other
SubmittingDrivers       1.1             <[e-mail]>.
SubmittingPatches       1.1     Linux kernel.  His e-mail address is [e-mail].  He gets
oops-tracing.txt        1.1     From: Linus Torvalds <[e-mail]>
CREDITS 1.1       Linus Torvalds <[e-mail]>