From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263606AbTLONu2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:50:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263609AbTLONu2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:50:28 -0500 Received: from bristol.phunnypharm.org ([65.207.35.130]:51929 "EHLO bristol.phunnypharm.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263606AbTLONu0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:50:26 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 08:27:20 -0500 From: Ben Collins To: Sergey Vlasov Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bitkeeper-users@bitmover.com Subject: Re: RFC - tarball/patch server in BitKeeper Message-ID: <20031215132720.GX7308@phunnypharm.org> References: <20031214172156.GA16554@work.bitmover.com> <2259130000.1071469863@[10.10.2.4]> <20031215151126.3fe6e97a.vsu@altlinux.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031215151126.3fe6e97a.vsu@altlinux.ru> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 03:11:26PM +0300, Sergey Vlasov wrote: > On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 22:31:04 -0800 Martin J. Bligh wrote: > > > One thing that I've wished for in the past which looks like it *might* > > be trivial to do is to grab a raw version of the patch you already > > put out in HTML format, eg if I surf down changesets and get to a page > > like this: > > > > http://linus.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.5/patch@1.1522?nav=index.html|ChangeSet@-2w|cset@1.1522 > > > > except it got html formatted, so I can't play with it easily. Is there > > any way to provide the raw format of that? If not, or you don't want to, > > no problem - would just be convenient. This isn't a open source vs not > > issue, it's just I often want one fix without the whole tree, and it'd > > be a convenient place to grab it. > > You almost can do this now - in most cases, copying the text from > Mozilla gives a good patch. The only problem is that the HTML > generation code seems to have a bug - it correctly escapes '<' as > "<" and '>' as ">", but does not escape '&' as "&", and this > occasionally leads to problems. > > I see another missing feature - there does not seem to be a way to > order the changesets by the order of merging them into the tree. E.g. > when you look at the linux-2.4 changesets, you will now find XFS all > over the place - even before 2.4.23, while it really has been merged > after 2.4.23. You don't seem to understand how bitkeeper works then. Back when the XFS tree was cloned from the 2.4 tree, it began it's own "branch". Over time it has merged code from the 2.4 tree, and it's work has occured over this same time. When XFS was merged back into the 2.4 tree, it retains all of that history in sort of a split road looking branch/merge. You wont be able to get an "XFS changeset". -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ WatchGuard - http://www.watchguard.com/