From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3C74067C.EE824444@mandrakesoft.com> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 15:26:36 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] struct page, new bk tree References: <20020219155706.H26350@work.bitmover.com> <20020220201716.45A574E2E@oscar.casa.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Ed Tomlinson Cc: Larry McVoy , Rik van Riel , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: 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/