From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265316AbUETXzy (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 May 2004 19:55:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265323AbUETXzy (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 May 2004 19:55:54 -0400 Received: from mail.autoweb.net ([198.172.237.26]:59908 "EHLO mail.autoweb.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265316AbUETXzv (ORCPT ); Thu, 20 May 2004 19:55:51 -0400 Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 19:54:38 -0400 From: Ryan Anderson To: Larry McVoy , Davidlohr Bueso A , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, '@ravnborg.org Subject: Re: bk repository Message-ID: <20040520235438.GB18544@michonline.com> Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy , Davidlohr Bueso A , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, '@ravnborg.org References: <1085025662.1032.10.camel@offworld> <20040520073951.GA2210@mars.ravnborg.org> <20040520152543.GB10634@work.bitmover.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040520152543.GB10634@work.bitmover.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 08:25:43AM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 09:39:51AM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 12:01:02AM -0400, Davidlohr Bueso A wrote: > > > When will the 2.6 branch be added to the bitkeeper resository? > > It's alrweady there, but with a bit mis-leading name. > > bk://linux.bkbits.net/linux-2.5 [...] > > To my knowledge there is no possibility to symlink two repositories, so > > both names could live in parrallel for a while?? > > Sure there is and it's done. > > root@hostme:/repos/l/linux# ls -l > total 20 > drwxrwxr-x 17 linux 1000 4096 May 20 05:29 linux-2.4 > drwxrwxr-x 20 linux 1000 4096 May 20 07:27 linux-2.5 > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 May 20 08:24 linux-2.6 -> linux-2.5 > drwxrwxr-x 20 root root 4096 May 10 17:40 lm > drwxrwxr-x 16 linux root 4096 Apr 16 23:43 vger > drwxrwxr-x 5 linux.ad 1000 4096 Mar 28 2002 www Wouldn't it make sense to avoid the need to do this in the future? Specifically, make a tree named "linux" available - that's always the Linus tree. Create linux-2.6/2.8/3.0/3.2 etc as they are handed off to maintainers *other* than Linus? Or some combination that makes sense. It just seems weird to me to need to continually change the name of the main development tree. -- Ryan Anderson sometimes Pug Majere