[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml? |
Date: |
26 Sep 2003 10:58:25 +0900 |
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)
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.
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Inertia on lkml?, Zack Brown, 2003/09/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Inertia on lkml?, Adam Spiers, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Pau Aliagas, 2003/09/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Inertia on lkml?, Zack Brown, 2003/09/25
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?,
Miles Bader <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Dustin Sallings, 2003/09/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Bruce Stephens, 2003/09/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/09/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/26
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Samium Gromoff, 2003/09/26
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Miles Bader, 2003/09/26
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Robin Farine, 2003/09/26
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: log-buf-len dynamic (fwd), Pau Aliagas, 2003/09/26