Re: we need to sequence this

2005-03-08 Thread YhLu
why does the Linux kernel use bitkeeper? YH -Original Message- From: Ronald G. Minnich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 1:09 PM To: linuxbios@clustermatic.org Subject: we need to sequence this we need a 'controlled shutdown' of the cvs project so we

Re: we need to sequence this

2005-03-08 Thread Li-Ta Lo
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 14:32, YhLu wrote: why does the Linux kernel use bitkeeper? YH The King (God?) said so. Ollie -Original Message- From: Ronald G. Minnich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 1:09 PM To: linuxbios@clustermatic.org Subject: we

Re: we need to sequence this

2005-03-08 Thread Ronald G. Minnich
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, YhLu wrote: why does the Linux kernel use bitkeeper? because it is really really good. Xen uses it too. IBM uses it extensively and they were trying to convince us to use it for linuxbios. But Larry's 'rules of engagement' for free use of the software are not

Re: we need to sequence this

2005-03-08 Thread Richard Smith
On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:23:48 -0700, Li-Ta Lo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 14:32, YhLu wrote: why does the Linux kernel use bitkeeper? YH I seem to remember it was because bitkeeper has really advanced patch handling and merging tools. -- Richard A. Smith

Re: we need to sequence this

2005-03-08 Thread Stefan Reinauer
* Ronald G. Minnich rminnich@lanl.gov [050308 22:08]: we need a 'controlled shutdown' of the cvs project so we can do a clean cut over to tla. Can we pick a day and time? midnight this saturday or some such? Do we all trust tla enough to go for it? I've not seen any problems since

Re: we need to sequence this

2005-03-08 Thread Ronald G. Minnich
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Stefan Reinauer wrote: How does closing the tree work? We can also tag it and leave it sitting there with a notice that it is obsolete. I am not sure how to close it. Possibly remove all developers this weekend. And, no commits post-midnight of this sunday. Something

Re: we need to sequence this

2005-03-08 Thread Li-Ta Lo
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 14:35, Eric W. Biederman wrote: The biggest problem with arch is that it does not work well on a windows machine. Mostly because of limitations of windows filesystems. I believe most of the issues go away if you don't have your repository on a windows box. Plus there

Re: we need to sequence this

2005-03-08 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Li-Ta Lo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 14:35, Eric W. Biederman wrote: The biggest problem with arch is that it does not work well on a windows machine. Mostly because of limitations of windows filesystems. I believe most of the issues go away if you don't have your

Re: we need to sequence this

2005-03-08 Thread Li-Ta Lo
On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 15:23, Eric W. Biederman wrote: Li-Ta Lo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 14:35, Eric W. Biederman wrote: The biggest problem with arch is that it does not work well on a windows machine. Mostly because of limitations of windows filesystems. I

Re: we need to sequence this

2005-03-08 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Li-Ta Lo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: ??? I thought vfat support long filenames. I believe it is the length of the pathname rather than individual filenames. Although some filenames may also be affected. I really don't understand it either. This is my dim recollection from watching some of the

Re: we need to sequence this

2005-03-08 Thread Richard Smith
??? I thought vfat support long filenames. I believe it is the length of the pathname rather than individual filenames. Although some filenames may also be affected. I really don't understand it either. This is my dim recollection from watching some of the conversation. It probally