Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21T15:59:10Z

On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 05:46:57PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Sunday 21 April 2002 17:33, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 03:30:38AM +0100, Ian Molton wrote:
> > > Jeff Garzik Awoke this dragon, who will now respond:
> > >
> > > > > Maybe I was to subtle, but your censorship argument is simply bullshit.
> > > > > A link to the information is completely sufficient.
> > > >
> > > > What was Daniel's action? Remove the text. Nothing else. Sure, he
> > > > suggested other options, but he did attempt to implement them? No.
> > >
> > > Be realistic - how is he supposed to do that?
> >
> > It's really trivial to put a document up on a Web site, before
> > submitting a patch to remove said document. Or to contact someone, and
> > get them to post the doc.
> >
> > Did he even attempt to do that? No.
>
> You're wrong. I suggested posting the documents on the bitkeeper site among
> other things and Larry agreed to do that. What do you think I should have done,
> demanded that Larry do that?

Suggestion != doing

If Linus had applied your patch, there would be a lag time during which
the doc would have no home at all.

Anything _other_ than removal before re-posting, what you attempted to
do, would have been far more palatable. One doesn't create their
fallback _after_ they nuke the primary.

Jeff