Re: [PATCH] struct page, new bk tree

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com>]

Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> 
> In my opinion the idea of cset -x (while usefull) is fundamentally
> broken.  The result of this is that ideas like blacklist need to be
> considered.  I would propose instead an undo -x, that would
> generate a cset to reverse the one following the -x.  This might
> lead to conflicts - these would be resolved the normal bk fashion.
> If bk handled ?bad? csets in this manner there would be no need for
> blacklists - it is more robust in that you can always used undo -x.

Well, if the changes are properly split up, you shouldn't need to do
this...  In the ideal situation it is easiest for Linus to accept or
reject a "bk pull" in its entirety.  Then he can just do a "bk unpull"

	Jeff



-- 
Jeff Garzik      | "Why is it that attractive girls like you
Building 1024    |  always seem to have a boyfriend?"
MandrakeSoft     | "Because I'm a nympho that owns a brewery?"
                 |             - BBC TV show "Coupling"
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/