[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1705120941060.1800@nanos>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 09:43:22 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
cc: Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Is there an recommended way to refer to bitkeepr commits?
On Fri, 12 May 2017, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Fixes: BKrev: 3e8e57a1JvR25MkFRNzoz85l2Gzccg ("[PATCH] linux-2.5.66-signal-cleanup.patch")
>
> In your tree that is c3c107051660 ("[PATCH] linux-2.5.66-signal-cleanup.patch"),
> but you don't have the 3e8e57a1JvR25MkFRNzoz85l2Gzccg revision recorded
> anywhere that I can see.
That's correct. I did not include the BK revisions when I imported the
commits into the history git. I did not see any reason to do so. I still
have no idea what the value would have been or why anyone wants to
reference them at all.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists