Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

From: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?
Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 12:26:53 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c4926dfa-5a48-11f5-024f-73bc76f1ba1e@landley.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87efvuezj2.fsf@linux-m68k.org>

On 05/12/2017 12:49 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Mai 12 2017, Rob Landley <rob@landley.net> wrote:
> 
>> Last I checked I couldn't just "git push" the fullhist tree to
>> git.kernel.org because git graft didn't propagate right.
> 
> Perhaps you could recreate them with git replace --graft.  That creates
> replace objects that can be pushed and fetched.  (They are stored in
> refs/replace, and must be pushed/fetched explicitly.)

It's the "must be pushed/fetched explicitly" part that I couldn't figure
out back when I tried it.

I inherited this tree from somebody who made it. I noticed its existence
because lwn.net covered it, and then 6 months later it had vanished
without trace (as so many things do). I reproduced it from the build
script (if you can't reproduce the experiment from initial starting
conditions, it's not science), went "look, cool thing", and hosted a
copy with an occasional repaint.

I would be _thrilled_ to hand it off to somebody who knows what they're
doing with git. I'm just unusually interested in computer history and
the preservation thereof. (https://landley.net/history/mirror).

Rob