Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

On Mai 13 2017, Rob Landley wrote: > It's the "must be pushed/fetched explicitly" part that I couldn't figure > out back when I tried it. You have to use refs/replace/*:refs/replace/* as the refspec for push and fetch. By default, push and fetch only look at refs/heads/*.

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

On Mai 13 2017, Rob Landley wrote: > It's the "must be pushed/fetched explicitly" part that I couldn't figure > out back when I tried it. You have to use refs/replace/*:refs/replace/* as the refspec for push and fetch. By default, push and fetch only look at refs/heads/*. Andreas. --

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

On 05/12/2017 12:49 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > On Mai 12 2017, Rob Landley wrote: > >> Last I checked I couldn't just "git push" the fullhist tree to >> git.kernel.org because git graft didn't propagate right. > > Perhaps you could recreate them with git replace --graft.

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

On 05/12/2017 12:49 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > On Mai 12 2017, Rob Landley wrote: > >> Last I checked I couldn't just "git push" the fullhist tree to >> git.kernel.org because git graft didn't propagate right. > > Perhaps you could recreate them with git replace --graft. That creates >

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

On 05/13/2017 04:35 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 12 May 2017, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Which leaves me perplexed. The hashes from tglx's current tree: >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git >> on kernel.org and the hashes in your full history tree differ.

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

On 05/13/2017 04:35 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 12 May 2017, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Which leaves me perplexed. The hashes from tglx's current tree: >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git >> on kernel.org and the hashes in your full history tree differ.

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

On Fri, 12 May 2017, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Which leaves me perplexed. The hashes from tglx's current tree: > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git > on kernel.org and the hashes in your full history tree differ. > Given that they are in theory the same tree this

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

On Fri, 12 May 2017, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Which leaves me perplexed. The hashes from tglx's current tree: > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tglx/history.git > on kernel.org and the hashes in your full history tree differ. > Given that they are in theory the same tree this

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

Rob Landley writes: > On 05/12/2017 09:45 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Thomas Gleixner writes: >> >>> On Fri, 12 May 2017, Michael Ellerman wrote: Fixes: BKrev: 3e8e57a1JvR25MkFRNzoz85l2Gzccg ("[PATCH] linux-2.5.66-signal-cleanup.patch")

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

Rob Landley writes: > On 05/12/2017 09:45 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Thomas Gleixner writes: >> >>> On Fri, 12 May 2017, Michael Ellerman wrote: Fixes: BKrev: 3e8e57a1JvR25MkFRNzoz85l2Gzccg ("[PATCH] linux-2.5.66-signal-cleanup.patch") In your tree that is

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

On Mai 12 2017, Rob Landley wrote: > Last I checked I couldn't just "git push" the fullhist tree to > git.kernel.org because git graft didn't propagate right. Perhaps you could recreate them with git replace --graft. That creates replace objects that can be pushed and

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

On Mai 12 2017, Rob Landley wrote: > Last I checked I couldn't just "git push" the fullhist tree to > git.kernel.org because git graft didn't propagate right. Perhaps you could recreate them with git replace --graft. That creates replace objects that can be pushed and fetched. (They are

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > That's correct. I did not include the BK revisions when I imported the > commits into the history git. I did not see any reason to do so. I still > have no idea what the value would have been or why anyone wants to >

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:43 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > That's correct. I did not include the BK revisions when I imported the > commits into the history git. I did not see any reason to do so. I still > have no idea what the value would have been or why anyone wants to > reference them at

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

On 05/12/2017 09:45 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Thomas Gleixner writes: > >> On Fri, 12 May 2017, Michael Ellerman wrote: >>> Fixes: BKrev: 3e8e57a1JvR25MkFRNzoz85l2Gzccg ("[PATCH] >>> linux-2.5.66-signal-cleanup.patch") >>> >>> In your tree that is c3c107051660

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

On 05/12/2017 09:45 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Thomas Gleixner writes: > >> On Fri, 12 May 2017, Michael Ellerman wrote: >>> Fixes: BKrev: 3e8e57a1JvR25MkFRNzoz85l2Gzccg ("[PATCH] >>> linux-2.5.66-signal-cleanup.patch") >>> >>> In your tree that is c3c107051660 ("[PATCH] >>>

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

Thomas Gleixner writes: > On Fri, 12 May 2017, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> Fixes: BKrev: 3e8e57a1JvR25MkFRNzoz85l2Gzccg ("[PATCH] >> linux-2.5.66-signal-cleanup.patch") >> >> In your tree that is c3c107051660 ("[PATCH] >> linux-2.5.66-signal-cleanup.patch"), >> but you

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

Thomas Gleixner writes: > On Fri, 12 May 2017, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> Fixes: BKrev: 3e8e57a1JvR25MkFRNzoz85l2Gzccg ("[PATCH] >> linux-2.5.66-signal-cleanup.patch") >> >> In your tree that is c3c107051660 ("[PATCH] >> linux-2.5.66-signal-cleanup.patch"), >> but you don't have the

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

On Fri, 12 May 2017, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Fixes: BKrev: 3e8e57a1JvR25MkFRNzoz85l2Gzccg ("[PATCH] > linux-2.5.66-signal-cleanup.patch") > > In your tree that is c3c107051660 ("[PATCH] > linux-2.5.66-signal-cleanup.patch"), > but you don't have the 3e8e57a1JvR25MkFRNzoz85l2Gzccg revision

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

On Fri, 12 May 2017, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Fixes: BKrev: 3e8e57a1JvR25MkFRNzoz85l2Gzccg ("[PATCH] > linux-2.5.66-signal-cleanup.patch") > > In your tree that is c3c107051660 ("[PATCH] > linux-2.5.66-signal-cleanup.patch"), > but you don't have the 3e8e57a1JvR25MkFRNzoz85l2Gzccg revision

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

Rob Landley writes: > On 05/11/2017 01:59 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> Linus Torvalds writes: >> >>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Eric W. Biederman >>> wrote: Thomas Gleixner appears to have a tree with

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

Rob Landley writes: > On 05/11/2017 01:59 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> Linus Torvalds writes: >> >>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Eric W. Biederman >>> wrote: Thomas Gleixner appears to have a tree with all of those same commits except with the BKrev tags stripped out.

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

On 05/11/2017 01:59 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Linus Torvalds writes: > >> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Eric W. Biederman >> wrote: >>> >>> Thomas Gleixner appears to have a tree with all of those same commits >>> except with the

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

On 05/11/2017 01:59 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Linus Torvalds writes: > >> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Eric W. Biederman >> wrote: >>> >>> Thomas Gleixner appears to have a tree with all of those same commits >>> except with the BKrev tags stripped out. >> >> That's the best import - so

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

Linus Torvalds writes: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Eric W. Biederman > wrote: >> >> Thomas Gleixner appears to have a tree with all of those same commits >> except with the BKrev tags stripped out. > > That's the best import - so use

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

Linus Torvalds writes: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Eric W. Biederman > wrote: >> >> Thomas Gleixner appears to have a tree with all of those same commits >> except with the BKrev tags stripped out. > > That's the best import - so use that tree by Thomas, and just use the > git revision

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Thomas Gleixner appears to have a tree with all of those same commits > except with the BKrev tags stripped out. That's the best import - so use that tree by Thomas, and just use the git revision numbers in it

Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > Thomas Gleixner appears to have a tree with all of those same commits > except with the BKrev tags stripped out. That's the best import - so use that tree by Thomas, and just use the git revision numbers in it (and say "tglx's

Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

(Apologies resent as I forgot to include linux-kernel when I sent this the first time) I am in the process of digging through the intersection of threads, signals, ptrace, and exec and I am encountering bugs that predate 2.6.12-rc2 the first version in our current git tree. I am trying to

Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?

(Apologies resent as I forgot to include linux-kernel when I sent this the first time) I am in the process of digging through the intersection of threads, signals, ptrace, and exec and I am encountering bugs that predate 2.6.12-rc2 the first version in our current git tree. I am trying to