Re: BK, deltas, snapshots and fate of -pre...

Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22T21:05:59Z

On Monday 22 April 2002 22:57, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 10:42:46PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On Monday 22 April 2002 22:18, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 08:05:25PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > > On Monday 22 April 2002 19:52, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > > > Should we remove all advertisements from the kernel? A Big Penguin
> > > > > would probably object to the removal of this printk advertisement
> > > > > for Swansea:
> > > > >
> > > > > Linux NET4.0 for Linux 2.4
> > > > > Based upon Swansea University Computer Society NET3.039
> > > > >
> > > > > If the answer is no, then you are targetting BitKeeper specifically...
> > > >
> > > > Excellent point. If the BitKeeper advertising in the kernel source were
> > > > held to that level, I would be satisfied.
> > >
> > > <chuckle> -- and if that occurred, _I_ would fight to remove it as a
> > > pointless advertisement.
> >
> > You'd want to get rid of the url that points at your docs?
>
> "that level" was assuming you were referring to the URL-free printk
> advertisement I quoted above.

Oh, I was thinking "a few lines", regardless of content.

--
Daniel