From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 15 May 2002 17:03:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 15 May 2002 17:03:42 -0400 Received: from as3-1-8.ras.s.bonet.se ([217.215.75.181]:6087 "EHLO garbo.kenjo.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 15 May 2002 17:03:42 -0400 Subject: Re: Changelogs on kernel.org From: Kenneth Johansson To: David Woodhouse Cc: Larry McVoy , Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <19065.1021493737@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.5 Date: 15 May 2002 23:03:34 +0200 Message-Id: <1021496614.917.33.camel@tiger> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 22:15, David Woodhouse wrote: > > lm@bitmover.com said: > > It's probably best if you simply view this as a BK limitation which > > isn't going away any time soon and don't put junk changesets in the > > middle of your stream of changes. It's easy enough to export the > > change you want as a patch, export the comments in the form that bk > > comments wants, undo the junk changeset, import the patch, and set the > > comments. Yeah, it's awkward; consider that a feedback loop which > > encourages you to think a bit more about what you put in the tree. > > What it actually encourages is for people to have multiple throwaway trees. > (Which isn't quite so much of a BK turnoff once you discover compilercache.) > > If the tree's going to be thrown away anyway, it doesn't matter if it gets > confused -- how about making it a little easier to backport changesets -- > surely it should be possible to make BK import a changeset iff all the > affected files are identical in both trees before the changeset? while we are adding to the wishlist here is a few more items. Away to make a clone with all files checked out in edit mode. I find that I always do the checkout anyway and maybe it's possible to make it faster if it's done at clone time. Also I have found that it is a pain in the a** to have debug code that I really don't want to save but it's temporary usefull. When I do a pull that changes the same file the pull don't work and I have to unedit the file and lose the debug code or make a needless checkin. I would really like if it was possible to do a merge that is only in the checkedout file not stored as a changeset.