Re: Problems using new Linux-2.4 bitkeeper repository.

[Jeff Garzik]

Larry McVoy wrote:

>On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 11:41:27AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>>I started with Linus's linux-2.4 repo and so did Marcelo.  We 
>>independently checked in 2.4.recent patches (including proper renametool 
>>use), which included the ia64 and mips merges, which added a ton of 
>>files.  
>>
>
>OK, so there is the root cause.  It's time to talk about duplicate changes.
>
[...]

>There are things we can do in BK to deal with this, but they are not easy
>and are going to take several months, is my guess.  I'd like to see if you
>can work around this by avoiding duplicate patches.  If you can, do so, 
>you will save yourself lots of grief.
>
[...]

>You really want to listen to this, I'm trying to head you off from screwing
>up the history.  If you get 300 renames like this, it's almost always a 
>duplicate patch scenario.
>

I know why it happened, silly.

This was just an example of a real world example that actually happened, 
where BK sucked ass :)

Marcelo's BK tree did not exist when I created my marcelo-2.4 tree. 
 marcelo-2.4 repo existed for a while and people started using it.  Once 
Marcelo appeared with his "official" BK tree, people naturally want to 
migrate.  There were two migration paths: (1) export everything to GNU 
patches, or (2) click the mouse 300 times.

So, knowing that duplicate patches are a bad thing helps not in the 
least here...

    Jeff