On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:01:46PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > I don't believe his claim, and I can prove it with a dumb example. > > Consider three patches, A, J and U, such that A and U are identical, > and J is a patch that reverses them. > > You can determine the final state of the tree given these 3 patches, > but you can't determine the history. It could be that A was installed > first, then J reverted it, then U put it back in. Or it could be that > U went in first, J reverted it, and A was put back in. How could one > know? Presumably by looking at the check in messages, presumably.
They all have dates, that's one hint, and they all should apply with no patch rejects, that's another hint. You're right that this still doesn't make it possible to create exactly the same tree as the BK tree but it makes it possible to create a useful tree. You are also right that figuring out the merges is a pain. So what? We never said that we'd figure out how to do all this well and then teach you how to do it well. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
