Re: Suggestion re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Daniel Phillips]

On Sunday 21 April 2002 20:12, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 03:54:04AM +1000, CaT wrote:
> > That's what I meant. Email gets sent out to LKML when the patch gets sent
> > to BK for approval by Linus. Another email can then be sent out (unless
> > it's felt that it's too verbose to do so) when Linus accepts it into the
> > tree. (unless I'm missing something about BK ;)
> 
> This doesn't work -- there is no BK _push_ to Linus.  There is no "sent
> to BK for approval."
> 
> Traditional RFC822 email is sent to Linus, telling him that there are BK
> changesets to be picked up.  A human-defined length of time ensues,
> after which Linus either ignores or comments on the email, and either
> does a 'bk pull' or not.

At the moment I'm thinking about returning to the patchbot project (by the
way, code *is* available now) and reworking it to handle both BK and GNU
patches.  The advantage of the patchbot is, it can do things like sniff
patches for NOTIFYMEONCHANGE directives, auto-CC a linux-patches list,
etc.  It could act as an accumulator of GNU patches into a BK repository,
waiting for Linus to pull, and in the interim, all interested observers
could also peek into the repository.

Hmm, I'm sensing a practical project here.

> Very similar to the way GNU patches are handled, strangely enough ;-)

Yes, well that was never completely satisfying to say the least.  IMHO, BK
is helping improve the situation, but comes with its own issues, not all of
them technical.

-- 
Daniel