Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: give us a hand with arch

[Andrea Arcangeli]

On Sat, Sep 27, 2003 at 02:09:34AM +0100, Bruce Stephens wrote:
> It's different because it also does names and implicit (and
> tagline)---all methods look the same, underneath, and so there's no
> nasty confusion when you try to change methods, or merge between two
> branches which have used different methods.

yes.

> (It may be that Andrea doesn't care about the different methods.
> Actually, that seems likely.  In which case what he was talking about
> *is* functionally equivalent to explicit, as you said.  However, it's

the main difference is that it generates a safer unique ID
automatically.

then to provide the strict checkin, I'd need to use tla add/rm anyways
to tell what should be checked in and what not.

however I may be missing something of why what I suggested isn't
feasible.

Really the main thing I care are the strict checkins, doing non strict
checkins would be a pain at least with the kernel, I've to assume
bitkeeper also provides them or I would expect somebody complaining
about it already.

Andrea - If you prefer relying on open source software, check these links:
            rsync.kernel.org::pub/scm/linux/kernel/bkcvs/linux-2.[45]/
            http://www.cobite.com/cvsps/
            svn://svn.kernel.org/linux-2.[46]/trunk