[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: |
Zack Brown |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic |
Date: |
Tue, 7 Oct 2003 16:47:34 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.4i |
On Tue, Oct 07, 2003 at 03:30:39PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 08:08:41PM -0400, Miles Bader wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 08:46:31PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > > > I think patches will be around for a long time; the central developers
> > > > may stop using them, but such things don't go away quickly.
> > >
> > > yes. Though the majority of patches don't involve renames.
> >
> > It is nice to handle them correctly though -- and currently with BK, Linus
> > _does_ handle rename patches correctly (I was very impressed when I first
> > saw
> > it).
>
> are you sure the reason isn't that every kernel developer but myself and
> Davide (and a very few others) are using bitkeeper? are you sure
> bitkeeper can detect renames automatically even if submitting it through
> a patch?
That's my impression from lkml discussion. I think BK isn't perfect with
this, but my understanding is that when it works from a diff, it looks at
created and deleted files, to see if they are really renames. It takes a
little extra time, but apparently it's worth it.
One of the more impressive aspects of BK.
Be well,
Zack
--
Zack Brown
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit (was Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic), Robin Farine, 2003/10/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Andrea Arcangeli, 2003/10/03
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Miles Bader, 2003/10/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Andrea Arcangeli, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Miles Bader, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Davide Libenzi, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Miles Bader, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Davide Libenzi, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Robert Collins, 2003/10/05
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Andrea Arcangeli, 2003/10/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic,
Zack Brown <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Tom Lord, 2003/10/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Zack Brown, 2003/10/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Tom Lord, 2003/10/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/10/08
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Zack Brown, 2003/10/08
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Miles Bader, 2003/10/08
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Zack Brown, 2003/10/08
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Tom Lord, 2003/10/08
- [Gnu-arch-users] tla Developer Documentation, Zack Brown, 2003/10/08
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Linus Torvalds <address@hidden> Re: log-buf-len dynamic, Miles Bader, 2003/10/08