[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len
From: |
Bruce Stephens |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic |
Date: |
Fri, 03 Oct 2003 00:26:26 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
Tom Lord <address@hidden> writes:
> > From: Miles Bader <address@hidden>
>
> > On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 05:46:15PM +0100, Paul Hedderly wrote:
> > > but also looks for files that have been renamed, _and_ changed.
>
> > tla-update-ids does this too, but only in the context of a project tree
> of
> > course.
>
> > [I'm not sure about BK's `renametool'; I _think_ it just gives you a
> menu of
> > old/new files and relies on a human operator to tell it which files
> should be
> > matched]
>
> Isn't that impossible? That suggests a way in which arch and tools
> built on top of arch are _ahead_ of BK. But the self-proclaimed
> leading expert in the field, LM, has assured us that arch is 3-5
> years _behind_ BK. Oh, it's all so confusing.
I presume humans only need to be involved when you're trying to import
a new tarball or something (where BitKeeper can't know how files have
been moved around).
[...]
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Tom Lord, 2003/10/02
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Miles Bader, 2003/10/02
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Tom Lord, 2003/10/02
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Samuel Tardieu, 2003/10/02
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Miles Bader, 2003/10/02
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Samuel Tardieu, 2003/10/03
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Miles Bader, 2003/10/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Paul Hedderly, 2003/10/02
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Miles Bader, 2003/10/02
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Tom Lord, 2003/10/02
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic,
Bruce Stephens <=
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Miles Bader, 2003/10/02
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Tupshin Harper, 2003/10/02
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Tom Lord, 2003/10/02
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Tupshin Harper, 2003/10/02
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Miles Bader, 2003/10/02
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Tupshin Harper, 2003/10/02
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Andrea Arcangeli, 2003/10/03
- [Gnu-arch-users] taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Pau Aliagas, 2003/10/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Charles Duffy, 2003/10/03
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Andrea Arcangeli, 2003/10/03