Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Jeff Garzik <garzik@havoc.gtf.org>]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 05:36:45PM -0400, Skip Ford wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > 
> > And the answer is, it is BK documentation written for kernel developers
> > by kernel developers, with the intention of being a SubmittingPatches
> > document for BK users.  Very relevant to kernel devel.  This relevance
> > was proved by its origin -- emails bouncing back and forth, generally
> > originating by Linus, CC'ing me, asking me for the emails I had
> > already sent to other hackers, describing kernel development under BK.
> 
> That's not true.  Section 1 of 'SubmittingPatches' is entitled
> "Creating and Sending Your Change" while section 1 of your
> bk bullshit is called "Bitkeeper Concepts."
> 
> All of section 1 is an advertisement for using bk...including
> directions on how to setup your own clone.  Those are _clearly_
> bitkeeper directions and have nothing to do with how to submit
> patches.

What you call an ad is the result of evolution of several resendings
of similar emails, and answering FAQs.  This is the stuff that has
proven useful over time.

To call that an advertisement is to insult the kernel developers
that asked these questions, which are answered in the doc.  They were
not requesting endorsements, they were asking honest questions about
ways to optimize their kernel development, and merging with Linus.
Responding with an intro on how BK clones work has proven to be a
good first step to that.

	Jeff