Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21T18:28:00Z

On Sunday 21 April 2002 20:15, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 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?

Which part of 'Larry offered to host it' was not completely clear?

CVS does not have the license issues. Red herring.

--
Daniel