Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-12 Thread Chris Friesen
Petr Baudis wrote: Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:50:48AM CEST, I got a letter Well, yes, but the last merge point search may not be so simple: A --1---26---7 B\ `-4-. / C `-3-5' Now, when at 7, your last merge point is not 1, but 2. ...and this is obviously wrong, sorr

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-12 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 11:50:48AM CEST, I got a letter where Petr Baudis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 10:39:40AM CEST, I got a letter > where Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > > On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote:

Re: Re: Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-12 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 10:39:40AM CEST, I got a letter where Geert Uytterhoeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: ..snip.. > > Basically, when you look at merge(1) : > > > > SYNOPSIS > >merge [ options ] file1 file2 file3 > > DESCRIP

Re: Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-12 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:20:18AM CEST, I got a letter > where "Adam J. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > > >Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 05:46:38PM CEST, I got a letter > > >where "Adam J. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told

Re: Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 03:20:18AM CEST, I got a letter where "Adam J. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > >Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 05:46:38PM CEST, I got a letter > >where "Adam J. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > >..snip.. > >> Graydon Hoare. (By

Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Adam J. Richter
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:45:38 +0200, Peter Baudis wrote: > Hello, > please do not trim the cc list so agressively. Sorry. I read the list from a web site that does not show the cc lists. I'll try to cc more people from the relevant discussions though. On the other hand, I've dropped Linus fro

Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Petr Baudis
Hello, please do not trim the cc list so agressively. Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 05:46:38PM CEST, I got a letter where "Adam J. Richter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... ..snip.. > Graydon Hoare. (By the way, I would prefer that git just punt to > user level programs for diff and

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Florian Weimer
* Petr Baudis: >> Almost certainly, v3 will be incompatible with v2 because it adds >> further restrictions. This means that your proposal would result in >> software which is not redistributable by third parties. > > Hmm, what would be actually the point in introducing further > restrictions? An

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Adam J. Richter
On 2005-04-11, Linus Torvalds wrote: >I'm inclined to go with GPLv2 just because it's the most common one [...] You may want to use a file from GPL'ed monotone that implements a substantial diff optimization described in the August 1989 paper by Sun Wu, Udi Manber and Gene Myers ("An O(NP)

Re: Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 10:40:00AM CEST, I got a letter where Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > * Ingo Molnar: > > > is there any fundamental problem with going with v2 right now, and then > > once v3 is out and assuming it looks ok, all newly copyrightable bits >

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Florian Weimer
* Ingo Molnar: > is there any fundamental problem with going with v2 right now, and then > once v3 is out and assuming it looks ok, all newly copyrightable bits > (new files, rewrites, substantial contributions, etc.) get a v3 > copyright? (and the collection itself would be v3 too) That method

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-11 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Btw, does anybody have strong opinions on the license? I didn't put in > a COPYING file exactly because I was torn between GPLv2 and OSL2.1. > > I'm inclined to go with GPLv2 just because it's the most common one, > but I was wondering if anybody r

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-10 Thread Nur Hussein
> Btw, does anybody have strong opinions on the license? I didn't put in a > COPYING file exactly because I was torn between GPLv2 and OSL2.1. I think GPLv2 would create the least amount of objection in the community, so I'd probably want to go with that. Nur Hussein - To unsubsc

Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > > Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:38:11PM CEST, I got a letter > where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > ..snip.. > > Can you pull my current repo, which has "diff-tree -R" that does what the > > name suggests, and which should

Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:38:11PM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... ..snip.. > Can you pull my current repo, which has "diff-tree -R" that does what the > name suggests, and which should be faster than the 0.48 sec you see.. Am I just missi

Re: GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 02:20:52AM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > Btw, does anybody have strong opinions on the license? I didn't put in a > COPYING file exactly because I was torn between GPLv2 and OSL2.1. > > I'm inclined to go with G

GIT license (Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1)

2005-04-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
Btw, does anybody have strong opinions on the license? I didn't put in a COPYING file exactly because I was torn between GPLv2 and OSL2.1. I'm inclined to go with GPLv2 just because it's the most common one, but I was wondering if anybody really had strong opinions. For example, I'd really ma

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Randy.Dunlap
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 16:23:11 -0700 Paul Jackson wrote: | Petr wrote: | > That reminds me, is there any | > tool which will take .rej files and throw them into the file to create | > rcsmerge-like conflicts? | | Check out 'wiggle' | http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~neilb/source/wiggle/ or Chris

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 01:46:50AM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > > > > (BTW, it would be useful to have a tool which just blindly takes what > > you give it on input and throws it to an ob

Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:39:02PM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > Can you pull my current repo, which has "diff-tree -R" that does what the > > name suggests, and which should be faster

Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > > (BTW, it would be useful to have a tool which just blindly takes what > you give it on input and throws it to an object of given type; I will > need to construct arbitrary commits during the rebuild if I'm to keep > the correct dates.) Hah. That's wha

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Paul Jackson
Petr wrote: > That reminds me, is there any > tool which will take .rej files and throw them into the file to create > rcsmerge-like conflicts? Check out 'wiggle' http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~neilb/source/wiggle/ -- I won't rest till it's the best ... Pro

Re: Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 01:10:58AM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > > > On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > > > > I currently already do a merge when you track someone's source - it will > > throw away your previous HEAD record tho

Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > > I currently already do a merge when you track someone's source - it will > throw away your previous HEAD record though Not only that, it doesn't do what I consider a "merge". A real merge should have two or more parents. The "commit-tree" command al

Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:38:11PM CEST, I got a letter where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > > > > It turns out to be the forks for doing all the cuts and such what is > > bogging it down so awfully (doing diff-tree takes

Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Can you pull my current repo, which has "diff-tree -R" that does what the > name suggests, and which should be faster than the 0.48 sec you see.. Actually, I changed things around. Everybody hated the "<" ">" lines, so I put a changed thing on a

Re: Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 09:13:19PM CEST, I got a letter where Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 08:45:22PM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote: > > > It turns out to be the forks for doing all the cuts and such what is > > bogging it down so awfully (doi

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Paul Jackson
Good lord - you don't need to use arrays for this. The old-fashioned ways have their ways. Both the 'set' command and the 'read' command can split args and assign to distinct variable names. Try something like the following: diff-tree -r $id1 $id2 | sed -e '/^/ / }' -e 's/./& /' |

Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > > It turns out to be the forks for doing all the cuts and such what is > bogging it down so awfully (doing diff-tree takes 0.48s ;-). I do about > 15 forks per change, I guess, and for some reason cut takes a long of > time on its own. Heh. Can you pul

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Sean
On Sun, April 10, 2005 12:55 pm, Linus Torvalds said: > Larry was ok with the idea to make my export format actually be natively > supported by BK (ie the same way you have "bk export -tpatch"), but > Tridge wanted to instead get at the native data and be difficult about > it. As a result, I can n

Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 08:45:22PM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote: > It turns out to be the forks for doing all the cuts and such what is > bogging it down so awfully (doing diff-tree takes 0.48s ;-). I do about > 15 forks per change, I guess, and for some reason cut takes a long of > time on its own.

Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 07:45:12PM CEST, I got a letter where Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that... > > * Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I will also need to do more testing on the linux kernel tree. > > > > Committing patch-2.6.7 on 2.6.6 kernel and the

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Willy Tarreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I will also need to do more testing on the linux kernel tree. > > > Committing patch-2.6.7 on 2.6.6 kernel and then diffing results in > > > > > > $ time gitdiff.sh `parent-id` `tree-id` >p > > > real5m37.434s > > > user1m27.113s >

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 07:33:49PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Petr Baudis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I will also need to do more testing on the linux kernel tree. > > Committing patch-2.6.7 on 2.6.6 kernel and then diffing results in > > > > $ time gitdiff.sh `parent-id` `tree-i

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Petr Baudis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I will also need to do more testing on the linux kernel tree. > Committing patch-2.6.7 on 2.6.6 kernel and then diffing results in > > $ time gitdiff.sh `parent-id` `tree-id` >p > real5m37.434s > user1m27.113s > sys

Re: [ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Petr Baudis wrote: > > Where did you get the sparse git database from, Linus? (BTW, it > would be nice to get sparse.git with the directories as separate.) When we were trying to figure out how to avert the BK disaster, and one of Tridges concerns (and, in my opinion, the o

[ANNOUNCE] git-pasky-0.1

2005-04-10 Thread Petr Baudis
Hello, so I "released" git-pasky-0.1, my set of patches and scripts upon Linus' git, aimed at human usability and to an extent a SCM-like usage. You can get it at http://pasky.or.cz/~pasky/dev/git/git-pasky-base.tar.bz2 and after unpacking and building (make) do git pull