Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21T17:11:20Z

On Sunday 21 April 2002 18:57, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 06:46:11PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > Let's pull back a little from the proselytizing, shall we? I'll modify
> > my proposal to 'include just a pointer to the bk documentation in the
> > kernel tree itself'. This should satisfy everybody.
>
> No, it doesn't. It was put into the tree for convenience.

How much less convenient is it to click on a link? So much harder that it's
worth pissing off some key developers?

> It therefore stands to reason that removing it creates inconvenience.
> Further, the only reason to remove it is ideology. i.e. something
> other than technical merit. So your proposal is still a no-go.

According to you, yes. I'll leave it on the table.

--
Daniel