Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21T18:17:15Z

On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 08:13:48PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Sunday 21 April 2002 19:55, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 07:48:44PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > On Sunday 21 April 2002 19:22, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > > Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > > > How much less convenient is it to click on a link? So much harder that it's
> > > > > worth pissing off some key developers?
> >
> > > > Linus has already explained why he put it into the kernel sources.
> >
> > > So far the only argument I've seen is: it's convenient. Did I miss something?
> > > The convenience argument is bogus. A url is just as convenient,
> >
> > If you say this, then you either missed, or are willfully ignoring,
> > what Linus said. Search for the string "helsinki.fi".
>
> Linus said:
>
> > As to why the docs are in the kernel sources rather than on any web-sites:
> > it's simply because I don't even _have_ a web page of my own (I've long
> > since forgotten the password to my old helsinki.fi account ;),
>
> Larry has offered to host it, so Linus's argument is answered.

These are docs-about-Linus, not docs-about-Larry.

Do you propose to move SubmittingPatches and all info related to CVS, to
Larry's web site?

If not... (see the last line of Linus's first response in this thread)

Jeff