[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?

From: Samium Gromoff
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:12:02 +0400
User-agent: Wanderlust/2.11.7 (Wonderwall) SEMI/1.14.5 (Awara-Onsen) FLIM/1.14.5 (Demachiyanagi) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.3 (i386-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI)

At 26 Sep 2003 10:58:25 +0900,
Miles Bader wrote:
> Zack Brown <address@hidden> writes:
> > Arch is still filled with controversial features, though.
> A bit strong I think.  If tla can deliver the goods feature-wise, I
> think your average kernel hacker (and especially someone as practical as
> Linus) will get over any initial distaste with `{arch}' and
> branch-naming conventions pretty quickly, and get down to business.
> The two things that still bother me about tla for large trees like the
> kernel are:
>  (1) Using individual files for explicit tags
>  (2) No cheap/merge-friendly way of switching tagging styles en-masse
>      (e.g. explicit -> tagline)

   (3) Can not send modifications to Linus as GNU patches.
       (because handling -/+ renames in the light of accepting
        side modifying the target file complicates things)

> I see both of these as being fairly tractable problems though (in that I
> think I could implement solutions without too much trouble).
> The previous entry on this list was of course `what-change/commit is
> butt slow on large trees' but the inode-state hack seems to have solved
> that problem.
> -Miles
> -- 
> Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

regards, Samium Gromoff

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]