Re: Problems using new Linux-2.4 bitkeeper repository.

[Jeff Garzik]

Larry McVoy wrote:

>>I think a fair question would be, is this scenario going to occur often? 
>> I don't know.  But I'll bet you -will- see it come up again in kernel 
>>development.  Why?  We are exercising the distributed nature of the 
>>BitKeeper system.  The system currently punishes Joe in Alaska and 
>>Mikhail in Russia if they independently apply the same GNU patch, and 
>>then later on wind up attempting to converge trees.
>>
>
>Indeed.  So speak in file systems, because a BK package is basically a file
>system, with multiple distributed instances, all of which may be out of
>sync.  The problems show up when the same patch is applied N times and 
>then comes together.  The inodes collide.  Right now, you think that's
>the problem, and want BK to fix it.  We can fix that.  But that's not 
>the real problem.  The real problem is N sets of diffs being applied
>and then merged.  The revision history ends up with the data inserted N
>times.
>
>I'm not sure what to do about it.  I can handle the duplicate inode case
>more gracefully but it's a heavy duty rewack.
>

Hence my suggestion for a short term solution that's immediately useful 
-- allowing some way to answer "local changes take precedence 100% of 
the time" or "remote changes ..." with a single command.  That was my 
hack solution that I thought would people might find useful when stuck 
with the duplicate-patch situation.

In the command line merge tool, when merging a file-create, "rla" would 
cause the current file conflict, and all future file-create conflicts, 
to be "won" by the remote side -- essentially creating the effect of 
typing "rl" 300 times.
Apply similar logic to the file-rename merge case.  I think the merge 
command I used in 100% of the cases, during that merge, was 'r'.

If you are stuck with the duplicate patch case, as happened here, I just 
want to see the pain eased a bit :)  IMO you can put off the hard 
problem if you make the UI a bit better.

    Jeff