On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 12:52:47AM +0300, didi wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 02:52:29PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > > > > I am a complete ignorant regarding bitkeeper. Are they ordered in the > > > order they were applied? > > > > Yes. Or rather, the reverse order -- from latest to earliest. > > Are you sure about that? I downloaded all (using wget), and when I > apply, sometimes patch says the patch seems to have already been > applied.
Specifically, I now tried applying the first 66 patches (from 1.1784.29.71 to 1.1784.39.1, in that order). I chose this cut point as according to the timestamps in the patches it seemed to be the last patch applied on some day, so I guessed it should have been some stable point - I did not want to pick randomnly a point in the middle of the work. And it didn't help. Besides the problem above (mainly about the one before the last - 1.1784.38.27, most of it was rejected, and seemed rather important to me), the kernel compiled ok, booted ok, but had no network :-( Are you sure the order isn't according to the numbers or somehow related to them? Tomorrow I might go on with this, but I am not sure - it's already taking me much more time than intended. I will also send logs of 2.6.8-rc1 and rc2. These versions did not have the option to add a timestamp to printk, so you'll only see the time seen by syslog, which isn't very accurate. -- Didi ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ [email protected] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-users
