* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
[not found] <20020421101731.D10525@work.bitmover.com>
@ 2002-04-21 17:22 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 17:48 ` Daniel Phillips
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-21 17:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: phillips; +Cc: linux-kernel
Daniel Phillips wrote:
> 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?
Linus has already explained why he put it into the kernel sources.
And, who are these key developers you are speaking for?
> > 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.
Linus has already explained he isn't applying your patch.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 17:22 ` [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-20 17:48 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 17:55 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 18:08 ` Larry McVoy
0 siblings, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-20 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Sunday 21 April 2002 19:22, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > 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?
>
> 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, especially as
Larry has offered an appropriate home, one which will by definition continue
to exist as long as Bitkeeper stays alive. Plus, the url saves download
bandwidth. A compelling argument I'd say.
> And, who are these key developers you are speaking for?
They can introduce themselves if they wish. Or you can ask around.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 17:48 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-21 17:55 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 18:07 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 18:13 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 18:08 ` Larry McVoy
1 sibling, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-21 17:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: linux-kernel
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".
> > And, who are these key developers you are speaking for?
>
> They can introduce themselves if they wish. Or you can ask around.
I am asking. My previous post was asking. Who are you speaking for?
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 17:55 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-20 18:07 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 18:13 ` Daniel Phillips
1 sibling, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-20 18:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: linux-kernel
> I am asking. My previous post was asking. Who are you speaking for?
"Answer zee question, old man!"
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 17:55 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 18:07 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-20 18:13 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 18:15 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 18:21 ` Larry McVoy
1 sibling, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-20 18:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: linux-kernel
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.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 18:13 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-21 18:15 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 18:26 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 18:21 ` Larry McVoy
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-21 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: linux-kernel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 18:15 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-20 18:26 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 18:40 ` Jeff Garzik
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-20 18:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: linux-kernel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 18:26 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-21 18:40 ` Jeff Garzik
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-21 18:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 08:26:58PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Sunday 21 April 2002 20:15, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 08:13:48PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > 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.
No, this is, to me, _the_ issue. And something you keep ignoring.
And proving that you ignored the point of Linus's first post in
this thread.
We have docs describing how kernel developers should merge with Linus.
In your opinion, if those docs describe closed source software,
they should be treated differently than other docs. Regardless of
relevance.
They _are_ relevant, everyone admits that. Therefore treating them
differently only introduces additional barriers and violates the
Principle of Least Surprise.
You are, in effect, trying to disallow politically incorrect speech
from the kernel sources.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 18:13 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 18:15 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-21 18:21 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-20 18:29 ` Daniel Phillips
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2002-04-21 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
> > 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.
Larry hereby retracts his offer until you back up your claims and answer
the questions you have been asked. You've made one unsubstantiated
claim after another and when challenged, you tell the challenger to do
the legwork to support your unsubstantiated claim.
If you think I'm going to aid in your silliness, think again.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 18:21 ` Larry McVoy
@ 2002-04-20 18:29 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 18:36 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-21 18:38 ` yodaiken
0 siblings, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-20 18:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Sunday 21 April 2002 20:21, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Larry hereby retracts his offer until you back up your claims and answer
> the questions you have been asked. You've made one unsubstantiated
> claim after another and when challenged, you tell the challenger to do
> the legwork to support your unsubstantiated claim.
So the offer was not in good faith.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 18:29 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-21 18:36 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-20 18:46 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 14:39 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 18:38 ` yodaiken
1 sibling, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2002-04-21 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 08:29:04PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Sunday 21 April 2002 20:21, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Larry hereby retracts his offer until you back up your claims and answer
> > the questions you have been asked. You've made one unsubstantiated
> > claim after another and when challenged, you tell the challenger to do
> > the legwork to support your unsubstantiated claim.
>
> So the offer was not in good faith.
Like I said, Daniel, put up or shut up. Would you like me to go through
the thread and come up with a list of claims you have made, been challenged
on, and refuse to substantiate?
We can discuss the good-faith issue *after* you answer the questions.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 18:36 ` Larry McVoy
@ 2002-04-20 18:46 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 19:07 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-21 14:39 ` Daniel Phillips
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-20 18:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Sunday 21 April 2002 20:36, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 08:29:04PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On Sunday 21 April 2002 20:21, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Larry hereby retracts his offer until you back up your claims and answer
> > > the questions you have been asked. You've made one unsubstantiated
> > > claim after another and when challenged, you tell the challenger to do
> > > the legwork to support your unsubstantiated claim.
> >
> > So the offer was not in good faith.
>
> Like I said, Daniel, put up or shut up. Would you like me to go through
> the thread and come up with a list of claims you have made, been challenged
> on, and refuse to substantiate?
Larry, you just lathered on a bunch of new conditions of dubious merit. I
understand by this that you had no real intention of following through on
your offer because you thought that it would never get close to becoming
reality.
> We can discuss the good-faith issue *after* you answer the questions.
Riiiiight. I have at least forwarded your demands to those who have
expressed their positions to me privately. If you think I'm going to
violate their confidence on your whim, you can think again.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 18:46 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-21 19:07 ` Larry McVoy
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2002-04-21 19:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 08:46:40PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > > > Larry has offered to host it, so Linus's argument is answered.
> > > >
> > > > Larry hereby retracts his offer until you back up your claims and answer
> > > > the questions you have been asked. You've made one unsubstantiated
> > > > claim after another and when challenged, you tell the challenger to do
> > > > the legwork to support your unsubstantiated claim.
> > >
> > > So the offer was not in good faith.
> >
> > Like I said, Daniel, put up or shut up. Would you like me to go through
> > the thread and come up with a list of claims you have made, been challenged
> > on, and refuse to substantiate?
>
> Larry, you just lathered on a bunch of new conditions of dubious merit. I
> understand by this that you had no real intention of following through on
> your offer because you thought that it would never get close to becoming
> reality.
Larry hereby retracts his offer until you back up your claims and answer
the questions you have been asked. You've made one unsubstantiated
claim after another and when challenged, you tell the challenger to do
the legwork to support your unsubstantiated claim.
(follow up again, get the same response, cut and paste is easy).
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 18:36 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-20 18:46 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-21 14:39 ` Daniel Phillips
1 sibling, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-21 14:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Sunday 21 April 2002 20:36, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 08:29:04PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On Sunday 21 April 2002 20:21, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Larry hereby retracts his offer until you back up your claims and answer
> > > the questions you have been asked. You've made one unsubstantiated
> > > claim after another and when challenged, you tell the challenger to do
> > > the legwork to support your unsubstantiated claim.
> >
> > So the offer was not in good faith.
>
> Like I said, Daniel, put up or shut up. Would you like me to go through
> the thread and come up with a list of claims you have made, been challenged
> on, and refuse to substantiate?
Yes.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 18:29 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 18:36 ` Larry McVoy
@ 2002-04-21 18:38 ` yodaiken
1 sibling, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: yodaiken @ 2002-04-21 18:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 08:29:04PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > Larry hereby retracts his offer until you back up your claims and answer
> > the questions you have been asked. You've made one unsubstantiated
> > claim after another and when challenged, you tell the challenger to do
> > the legwork to support your unsubstantiated claim.
>
> So the offer was not in good faith.
Daniel: I thought better of you.
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Victor Yodaiken
Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company.
www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 17:48 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 17:55 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-21 18:08 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-20 18:15 ` Daniel Phillips
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2002-04-21 18:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 07:48:44PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Plus, the url saves download
> bandwidth. A compelling argument I'd say.
The docs are all of 12K, I just went and looked. If you care about
bandwidth, you'd be arguing in favor of BK, it saves tons of bandwidth
compared to diff and patch.
In fact, your path to remove them proves that. If you cared about bandwidth,
you would have posted a BK patch to do it. :-)
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 18:08 ` Larry McVoy
@ 2002-04-20 18:15 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 19:06 ` dean gaudet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-20 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Sunday 21 April 2002 20:08, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 07:48:44PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > Plus, the url saves download
> > bandwidth. A compelling argument I'd say.
>
> The docs are all of 12K, I just went and looked. If you care about
> bandwidth, you'd be arguing in favor of BK, it saves tons of bandwidth
> compared to diff and patch.
All you said is 'it doesn't waste *that* much bandwidth'. Remember, this is
the place we spend days arguing over a cycle or two.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 18:15 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-21 19:06 ` dean gaudet
2002-04-21 14:53 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 20:22 ` [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: dean gaudet @ 2002-04-21 19:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Riiiiight. I have at least forwarded your demands to those who have
> expressed their positions to me privately. If you think I'm going to
> violate their confidence on your whim, you can think again.
so then you're having private discussions in email, and one of your
complaints is about other private discussions in email?
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> All you said is 'it doesn't waste *that* much bandwidth'. Remember, this is
> the place we spend days arguing over a cycle or two.
this bk thread alone has so far consumed 597023 bytes just for the message
bodies... plus who knows how many bytes for TCP/IP headers, SMTP overhead,
and DNS overhead. that's uncompressed, and multiplied by the, hmm,
approximately 2000 subscribers to l-k plus the dozen or two web archives
of l-k?
what was that you were saying about wasting bandwidth? if you cared at
all about bandwidth you might want to consider not replying.
personally i probably wouldn't be so interested in bk if it weren't for
all the zealots telling me it's something i shouldn't even consider using.
your approach is about as effective as the war on drugs, or minimum
alcohol consumption age limits. tell what i can't do and i'm damn well
going to go investigate what it is that's supposedly so bad for me.
thanks to all of you for pointing me in the direction of a tool which
looks to be a huge step forward in SCM. i believe "paradigm shift" would
be an apt term for bk.
-dean
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 19:06 ` dean gaudet
@ 2002-04-21 14:53 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22 17:03 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-22 20:37 ` double-standard? (Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree) dean gaudet
2002-04-21 20:22 ` [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree Andrew Morton
1 sibling, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-21 14:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dean gaudet; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Sunday 21 April 2002 21:06, dean gaudet wrote:
> personally i probably wouldn't be so interested in bk if it weren't for
> all the zealots telling me it's something i shouldn't even consider using.
> your approach is about as effective as the war on drugs, or minimum
> alcohol consumption age limits. tell what i can't do and i'm damn well
> going to go investigate what it is that's supposedly so bad for me.
>
> thanks to all of you for pointing me in the direction of a tool which
> looks to be a huge step forward in SCM. i believe "paradigm shift" would
> be an apt term for bk.
You seem to think I'm against Bitkeeper, or its use, or that I think
Bitkeeper isn't helping linux. You're wrong. I am against carrying what
*appears* to be a big advertisement for Bitkeeper itself in the Linux
source tree. This I see as akin to putting up a commercial billboard in a
public park. Would you be comfortable with that?
If my comments have caused increased interest in Bitkeeper and spiked up
Larry's downloads, I am glad. Now everybody is happy except a number of
those whose involvement with Linux is based on some kind of philosophical
belief in the freeness of software (or at least in the freeness of Linux)
and who have been on the butt end of numerous insults in this thread,
your insult above ("zealots") being a good example.
I have suggested carrying a URL instead. Is it reasonable? Who is being
extreme here?
Furthermore, who is making the vicious attacks, and why?
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 14:53 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-22 17:03 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 17:27 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22 20:37 ` double-standard? (Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree) dean gaudet
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-22 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: dean gaudet, Larry McVoy, linux-kernel
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 04:53:05PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> You seem to think I'm against Bitkeeper, or its use, or that I think
> Bitkeeper isn't helping linux. You're wrong. I am against carrying what
> *appears* to be a big advertisement for Bitkeeper itself in the Linux
> source tree. This I see as akin to putting up a commercial billboard in a
> public park. Would you be comfortable with that?
No, poor analogy -- the doc has proven useful time and time to kernel
developers. It's in the kernel source because of that.
Let us separate that fact from the notion that it is a BK
advertisement, and discuss that part, since that seems to be the
important issue. As the author of the doc, I state the doc was
not written as an advertisement, and was not paid for, directly
or indirectly.
That said, it certainly can been seen as an advertisement. I like BK,
and like to encourage others to use it.
So let us term the BK doc as, "not intended as an advertisement,
but can easily be considered such." I hope we agree so far? :)
Now that we have that...
Q. What is the justification for removing an admittedly-useful
advertisement?
A. Some people disagree with the author's point of view
(that POV being, "it's ok to use BK in the open source Linux project")
There is no dispute that the doc is useful, only dispute with certain
beliefs. Disagreement is fine... encouraged, even. But that's a
poor justification to remove the doc from the tree.
I hear your point, I really do. I just feel very strongly that
removing the BK docs from the tree is the worst way to go about
supporting this point of view.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-22 17:03 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-21 17:27 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22 17:30 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-22 17:40 ` Jeff Garzik
0 siblings, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-21 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: dean gaudet, Larry McVoy, linux-kernel
On Monday 22 April 2002 19:03, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Let us separate that fact from the notion that it is a BK
> advertisement, and discuss that part, since that seems to be the
> important issue. As the author of the doc, I state the doc was
> not written as an advertisement, and was not paid for, directly
> or indirectly.
>
> That said, it certainly can been seen as an advertisement.
OK, we've established that then.
> I like BK, and like to encourage others to use it.
>
> So let us term the BK doc as, "not intended as an advertisement,
> but can easily be considered such." I hope we agree so far? :)
>
> Now that we have that...
>
> Q. What is the justification for removing an admittedly-useful
> advertisement?
1) It would be equally as useful as a URL
2) It would not consume download bandwidth
3) It would show some sensitivity to the concerns of those who are
uncomfortable with the license.
> There is no dispute that the doc is useful, only dispute with certain
> beliefs. Disagreement is fine... encouraged, even. But that's a
> poor justification to remove the doc from the tree.
>
> I hear your point, I really do. I just feel very strongly that
> removing the BK docs from the tree is the worst way to go about
> supporting this point of view.
I really don't see how changing out the files for a url qualifies as
the "worst way" of addressing the issue. If Larry unretracts his offer
to host the files - and I fully expect he will do that after some period
of indulging in his wounded bird act - then by definition the documentation
will always be available exactly when and where needed. Is there *anybody*
here who'd have further license-related complaints about Bitkeeper if that
were done? (Speak or forever hold your peace.)
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 17:27 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-22 17:30 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-21 17:47 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22 17:40 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2002-04-22 17:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, dean gaudet, Larry McVoy, linux-kernel
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 07:27:37PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Is there *anybody*
> here who'd have further license-related complaints about Bitkeeper if that
> were done? (Speak or forever hold your peace.)
Oh boy oh boy oh boy, if you can deliver a commitment that this is the
last time we have a BK license-related complaint from a kernel hacker,
I'll be the first to argue vehemently for that patch you want.
I'd like to know how you are going to deliver on that offer you just made.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-22 17:30 ` Larry McVoy
@ 2002-04-21 17:47 ` Daniel Phillips
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-21 17:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, dean gaudet, Larry McVoy, linux-kernel
On Monday 22 April 2002 19:30, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 07:27:37PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > Is there *anybody*
> > here who'd have further license-related complaints about Bitkeeper if that
> > were done? (Speak or forever hold your peace.)
>
> Oh boy oh boy oh boy, if you can deliver a commitment that this is the
> last time we have a BK license-related complaint from a kernel hacker,
> I'll be the first to argue vehemently for that patch you want.
>
> I'd like to know how you are going to deliver on that offer you just made.
Clearly I'm not going to shut anyone up. However, only somebody with a very
limited perception of the situation could fail to note that you're being
tested, and what you do next is going to help form attitudes for some time
to come.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 17:27 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22 17:30 ` Larry McVoy
@ 2002-04-22 17:40 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 17:57 ` Daniel Phillips
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-22 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: dean gaudet, Larry McVoy, linux-kernel
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 07:27:37PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> 1) It would be equally as useful as a URL
Maybe 5% less useful or so. There are reasons we move other
(non-controversial) docs into the kernel source. 100% of these docs can
be URLs.
> 2) It would not consume download bandwidth
This is a silly argument that dean gaudet dismembered. It's 12K
compressed and not your main argument at all.
> 3) It would show some sensitivity to the concerns of those who are
> uncomfortable with the license.
I agree.
So, I believe points #1 and #2 are silly, and #3 is your core argument.
And I agree that it would show sensitivity towards those people who
dislike the BK license.
That said, I still think removing the doc is a hideously wrong thing
to do. I see the action of BK doc removal as encouraging some strict
notion of what we can and cannot discuss, inside the kernel sources.
_That_ is the free speech aspect.
I see enforcing a strict notion of acceptable speech in the kernel
sources as a very bad thing for the Linux project.
I'm not asking you to agree -- but do you even understand my viewpoint here?
> > There is no dispute that the doc is useful, only dispute with certain
> > beliefs. Disagreement is fine... encouraged, even. But that's a
> > poor justification to remove the doc from the tree.
> >
> > I hear your point, I really do. I just feel very strongly that
> > removing the BK docs from the tree is the worst way to go about
> > supporting this point of view.
>
> I really don't see how changing out the files for a url qualifies as
> the "worst way" of addressing the issue. If Larry unretracts his offer
> to host the files - and I fully expect he will do that after some period
> of indulging in his wounded bird act - then by definition the documentation
> will always be available exactly when and where needed. Is there *anybody*
> here who'd have further license-related complaints about Bitkeeper if that
> were done? (Speak or forever hold your peace.)
First, I can host the doc. And will, if there is justification.
I do not see a justification. Larry is irrelevant.
Second, I guarantee that license-related complaints about BitKeeper will
continue to exist, regardless of the doc's location. Moving the doc
does absolutely nothing to assauge bad feelings about the BK license.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-22 17:40 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-21 17:57 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22 20:47 ` Jeff Garzik
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-21 17:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: dean gaudet, Larry McVoy, linux-kernel
On Monday 22 April 2002 19:40, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 07:27:37PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > 1) It would be equally as useful as a URL
>
> Maybe 5% less useful or so. There are reasons we move other
> (non-controversial) docs into the kernel source. 100% of these docs can
> be URLs.
>
> > 2) It would not consume download bandwidth
>
> This is a silly argument that dean gaudet dismembered. It's 12K
> compressed and not your main argument at all.
>
>
> > 3) It would show some sensitivity to the concerns of those who are
> > uncomfortable with the license.
>
> I agree.
>
> So, I believe points #1 and #2 are silly, and #3 is your core argument.
I think you stated that #1 is only 5% silly, by implication, 95% unsilly.
Two out of three ain't bad.
> And I agree that it would show sensitivity towards those people who
> dislike the BK license.
>
> That said, I still think removing the doc is a hideously wrong thing
> to do.
I agree. (/me listens for sound of garzik hitting floor) The doc was never
to be removed, it was to be moved. Read the original mail please. I repeat:
I *like* your docs, in fact I think they are excellent docs. I just don't
like to see them sitting in Documentation, for reasons we've been over in
some detail.
> I see the action of BK doc removal as encouraging some strict
> notion of what we can and cannot discuss, inside the kernel sources.
> _That_ is the free speech aspect.
>
> I see enforcing a strict notion of acceptable speech in the kernel
> sources as a very bad thing for the Linux project.
>
> I'm not asking you to agree -- but do you even understand my viewpoint here?
I do. I don't agree with you that any of this has something to do with free
speech, but I'm willing to accept that you view the kernel source as a kind of
podium.
> > I really don't see how changing out the files for a url qualifies as
> > the "worst way" of addressing the issue. If Larry unretracts his offer
> > to host the files - and I fully expect he will do that after some period
> > of indulging in his wounded bird act - then by definition the documentation
> > will always be available exactly when and where needed. Is there *anybody*
> > here who'd have further license-related complaints about Bitkeeper if that
> > were done? (Speak or forever hold your peace.)
>
> First, I can host the doc. And will, if there is justification.
> I do not see a justification. Larry is irrelevant.
To this discussion? Debatable. I'll go with you on that for now though, and
see where it leads.
> Second, I guarantee that license-related complaints about BitKeeper will
> continue to exist, regardless of the doc's location. Moving the doc
> does absolutely nothing to assauge bad feelings about the BK license.
It would for me, others mileage may vary.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 17:57 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-22 20:47 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 20:54 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22 22:04 ` Davide Libenzi
0 siblings, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-22 20:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: dean gaudet, Larry McVoy, linux-kernel
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 07:57:55PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Monday 22 April 2002 19:40, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 07:27:37PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > 1) It would be equally as useful as a URL
> >
> > Maybe 5% less useful or so. There are reasons we move other
> > (non-controversial) docs into the kernel source. 100% of these docs can
> > be URLs.
> >
> > > 2) It would not consume download bandwidth
> >
> > This is a silly argument that dean gaudet dismembered. It's 12K
> > compressed and not your main argument at all.
> >
> >
> > > 3) It would show some sensitivity to the concerns of those who are
> > > uncomfortable with the license.
> >
> > I agree.
> >
> > So, I believe points #1 and #2 are silly, and #3 is your core argument.
>
> I think you stated that #1 is only 5% silly, by implication, 95% unsilly.
> Two out of three ain't bad.
I will grant you that :) but clarify:
Making is a URL is no big deal and shouldn't be a point of discussion,
as I think #2 is no big deal and shouldn't be a point of discussion.
The real question, as I understand it, is whether or not the kernel doc
should be in the kernel source or not. If the answer is 'no', then I
fully support making it a URL, or printing it out the back of
phonebooks, or whatever means of distribution :)
But I am arguing that the answer 'no' has not been justified yet...
> > And I agree that it would show sensitivity towards those people who
> > dislike the BK license.
> >
> > That said, I still think removing the doc is a hideously wrong thing
> > to do.
>
> I agree. (/me listens for sound of garzik hitting floor) The doc was never
> to be removed, it was to be moved. Read the original mail please. I repeat:
> I *like* your docs, in fact I think they are excellent docs. I just don't
> like to see them sitting in Documentation, for reasons we've been over in
> some detail.
This is really a semantic argument... I shorten "removing from kernel
sources" as "removing", because (correct me here) we are discussing what
we want to see in the kernel sources, and what we do not want to see in
the kernel sources.
Even without an official web site, the BK doc would live on in kernel
archives if nowhere else.
If it makes things more clear, I can use my same arguments, and do a
search-n-replace of "remove from kernel sources" to "move from kernel
sources to elsewhere." To me, it's the same thing.
> > I see the action of BK doc removal as encouraging some strict
> > notion of what we can and cannot discuss, inside the kernel sources.
> > _That_ is the free speech aspect.
> >
> > I see enforcing a strict notion of acceptable speech in the kernel
> > sources as a very bad thing for the Linux project.
> >
> > I'm not asking you to agree -- but do you even understand my viewpoint here?
>
> I do. I don't agree with you that any of this has something to do with free
> speech, but I'm willing to accept that you view the kernel source as a kind of
> podium.
I conjecture, then, that moving the BK doc to satisfy sensitivies is
also acknowledge of the kernel sources as a podium :)
> > > I really don't see how changing out the files for a url qualifies as
> > > the "worst way" of addressing the issue. If Larry unretracts his offer
> > > to host the files - and I fully expect he will do that after some period
> > > of indulging in his wounded bird act - then by definition the documentation
> > > will always be available exactly when and where needed. Is there *anybody*
> > > here who'd have further license-related complaints about Bitkeeper if that
> > > were done? (Speak or forever hold your peace.)
> >
> > First, I can host the doc. And will, if there is justification.
> > I do not see a justification. Larry is irrelevant.
>
> To this discussion? Debatable. I'll go with you on that for now though, and
> see where it leads.
hehe
> > Second, I guarantee that license-related complaints about BitKeeper will
> > continue to exist, regardless of the doc's location. Moving the doc
> > does absolutely nothing to assauge bad feelings about the BK license.
>
> It would for me, others mileage may vary.
Interesting. And I will claim up-front that I don't understand this
one bit. BitKeeper would still be in use with its odious license,
and people will still say the "BitKeeper mafia" exists, even if the
document is moved.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-22 20:47 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-21 20:54 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22 22:04 ` Davide Libenzi
1 sibling, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-21 20:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: dean gaudet, Larry McVoy, linux-kernel
On Monday 22 April 2002 22:47, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 07:57:55PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > I do. I don't agree with you that any of this has something to do with free
> > speech, but I'm willing to accept that you view the kernel source as a kind of
> > podium.
>
> I conjecture, then, that moving the BK doc to satisfy sensitivies is
> also acknowledge of the kernel sources as a podium :)
More like a monument. Currently, with a billboard on it.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-22 20:47 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 20:54 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-22 22:04 ` Davide Libenzi
2002-04-22 22:17 ` There is no cabal (was: the BK flamewar) Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Davide Libenzi @ 2002-04-22 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: Daniel Phillips, dean gaudet, Larry McVoy, linux-kernel
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> The real question, as I understand it, is whether or not the kernel doc
> should be in the kernel source or not. If the answer is 'no', then I
> fully support making it a URL, or printing it out the back of
> phonebooks, or whatever means of distribution :)
i really tried to remain out of this. in theory, like Linus said, we
should not even know that he's using bk. it should be completely hidden.
the only method described inside the kernel tarbal should be the
old diff+patch one. main maintainers ( i mean the group of at most 10 that
are handling huge number of patches and that are highly interacting with
Linus ) will very likely get benefits from using bk instead of diff+patch,
but for these one no doc is necessary. either they know or Larry can
provide them with all the docs they need. for all the remaining crew, bk
adoption is simply a trend followup.
- Davide
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* There is no cabal (was: the BK flamewar)
2002-04-22 22:04 ` Davide Libenzi
@ 2002-04-22 22:17 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-22 23:22 ` Davide Libenzi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-22 22:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Davide Libenzi; +Cc: Daniel Phillips, dean gaudet, Larry McVoy, linux-kernel
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 03:04:19PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> > The real question, as I understand it, is whether or not the kernel doc
> > should be in the kernel source or not. If the answer is 'no', then I
> > fully support making it a URL, or printing it out the back of
> > phonebooks, or whatever means of distribution :)
>
> i really tried to remain out of this. in theory, like Linus said, we
> should not even know that he's using bk. it should be completely hidden.
> the only method described inside the kernel tarbal should be the
> old diff+patch one. main maintainers ( i mean the group of at most 10 that
> are handling huge number of patches and that are highly interacting with
> Linus ) will very likely get benefits from using bk instead of diff+patch,
> but for these one no doc is necessary. either they know or Larry can
> provide them with all the docs they need. for all the remaining crew, bk
> adoption is simply a trend followup.
Nope, the kernel doc was created precisely for the kernel maintainers,
cuz most of them (like me) had no clue about how to use BK nicely
for the kernel. Honestly, we were all lazy (except the PPC guys
and GregKH, I guess :)) and let Linus figure out kernel development
under BK.
If we attempt to pretend that BK is not widely usage, you do a
dissservice to other kernel developers, sysadmins, and power users --
and possibly _increase_ the barrier to entry of the "group of at most
10" you describe above.
That "10" does not need do, and should never be, an exclusive club...
it just sorta evolved over time as the people who work best with
Linus. I want to spread knowledge about working well with Linus
as far and as wide as possible -- that benefits all Linux users,
and open source overall.
I think I have proven that I am working towards that goal, of
publishing "Linus knowledge" -- I wrote not only the BK version of
Doc/SubmittingPatches, but also Doc/SubmittingPatches itself.
Let the knowledge out there, and let people make their own decisions...
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: There is no cabal (was: the BK flamewar)
2002-04-22 22:17 ` There is no cabal (was: the BK flamewar) Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-22 23:22 ` Davide Libenzi
2002-04-22 23:27 ` Jeff Garzik
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Davide Libenzi @ 2002-04-22 23:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik
Cc: Daniel Phillips, dean gaudet, Larry McVoy,
Linux Kernel Mailing List
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 03:04:19PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > > The real question, as I understand it, is whether or not the kernel doc
> > > should be in the kernel source or not. If the answer is 'no', then I
> > > fully support making it a URL, or printing it out the back of
> > > phonebooks, or whatever means of distribution :)
> >
> > i really tried to remain out of this. in theory, like Linus said, we
> > should not even know that he's using bk. it should be completely hidden.
> > the only method described inside the kernel tarbal should be the
> > old diff+patch one. main maintainers ( i mean the group of at most 10 that
> > are handling huge number of patches and that are highly interacting with
> > Linus ) will very likely get benefits from using bk instead of diff+patch,
> > but for these one no doc is necessary. either they know or Larry can
> > provide them with all the docs they need. for all the remaining crew, bk
> > adoption is simply a trend followup.
>
> Nope, the kernel doc was created precisely for the kernel maintainers,
> cuz most of them (like me) had no clue about how to use BK nicely
> for the kernel. Honestly, we were all lazy (except the PPC guys
> and GregKH, I guess :)) and let Linus figure out kernel development
> under BK.
>
> If we attempt to pretend that BK is not widely usage, you do a
> dissservice to other kernel developers, sysadmins, and power users --
> and possibly _increase_ the barrier to entry of the "group of at most
> 10" you describe above.
>
> That "10" does not need do, and should never be, an exclusive club...
> it just sorta evolved over time as the people who work best with
> Linus. I want to spread knowledge about working well with Linus
> as far and as wide as possible -- that benefits all Linux users,
> and open source overall.
Jeff, did you really mean this ?
"If we attempt to pretend that BK is not widely usage ..."
It did not seem to me that Linus required BK to interact with him. So to
be or not to be inside the above group does not depend at all from BK
usage. BK can make life a lot easier for guys handling huge number of
patches with complex hierarchies, but forcing the one working with 1-5
patches to use it, it reflects the "trend followup" i was talking about.
- Davide
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: There is no cabal (was: the BK flamewar)
2002-04-22 23:22 ` Davide Libenzi
@ 2002-04-22 23:27 ` Jeff Garzik
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-22 23:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Davide Libenzi
Cc: Daniel Phillips, dean gaudet, Larry McVoy,
Linux Kernel Mailing List
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 04:22:29PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 03:04:19PM -0700, Davide Libenzi wrote:
> > > On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > >
> > > > The real question, as I understand it, is whether or not the kernel doc
> > > > should be in the kernel source or not. If the answer is 'no', then I
> > > > fully support making it a URL, or printing it out the back of
> > > > phonebooks, or whatever means of distribution :)
> > >
> > > i really tried to remain out of this. in theory, like Linus said, we
> > > should not even know that he's using bk. it should be completely hidden.
> > > the only method described inside the kernel tarbal should be the
> > > old diff+patch one. main maintainers ( i mean the group of at most 10 that
> > > are handling huge number of patches and that are highly interacting with
> > > Linus ) will very likely get benefits from using bk instead of diff+patch,
> > > but for these one no doc is necessary. either they know or Larry can
> > > provide them with all the docs they need. for all the remaining crew, bk
> > > adoption is simply a trend followup.
> >
> > Nope, the kernel doc was created precisely for the kernel maintainers,
> > cuz most of them (like me) had no clue about how to use BK nicely
> > for the kernel. Honestly, we were all lazy (except the PPC guys
> > and GregKH, I guess :)) and let Linus figure out kernel development
> > under BK.
> >
> > If we attempt to pretend that BK is not widely usage, you do a
> > dissservice to other kernel developers, sysadmins, and power users --
> > and possibly _increase_ the barrier to entry of the "group of at most
> > 10" you describe above.
> >
> > That "10" does not need do, and should never be, an exclusive club...
> > it just sorta evolved over time as the people who work best with
> > Linus. I want to spread knowledge about working well with Linus
> > as far and as wide as possible -- that benefits all Linux users,
> > and open source overall.
>
> Jeff, did you really mean this ?
>
> "If we attempt to pretend that BK is not widely usage ..."
>
> It did not seem to me that Linus required BK to interact with him. So to
> be or not to be inside the above group does not depend at all from BK
> usage. BK can make life a lot easier for guys handling huge number of
> patches with complex hierarchies, but forcing the one working with 1-5
> patches to use it, it reflects the "trend followup" i was talking about.
If you read that from what I wrote, you are mistaken...
I'm saying that removing the BK doc from the kernel sources removes
description of one, _optional_ avenue to Linus. That is denying
people information.
Which is completely contrary to one of my goals, spreading knowledge
about working with Linus to decrease the barrier of entry.
BK is not a requirement, even for regular submittors. Optional.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* double-standard? (Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree)
2002-04-21 14:53 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22 17:03 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-22 20:37 ` dean gaudet
2002-04-21 20:49 ` Daniel Phillips
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: dean gaudet @ 2002-04-22 20:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> You seem to think I'm against Bitkeeper, or its use, or that I think
> Bitkeeper isn't helping linux. You're wrong. I am against carrying what
> *appears* to be a big advertisement for Bitkeeper itself in the Linux
> source tree. This I see as akin to putting up a commercial billboard in a
> public park. Would you be comfortable with that?
part of what i'm reacting to in this debate is what i perceive as a
different set of standards which people apply to software versus, say,
hardware.
linux-kernel (and the kernel itself, and the zillions of websites out
there with supporting documentation) are chock full of "advertisements"
for hardware. pro and con. i've made many hardware purchase decisions
based on stuff i read here, and stuff i find when searching for linux
documentation.
maybe someday we'll get scifi technology such as nanotech or replicators
(and "limitless" fusion energy) which can move us into a new economy in
which even open hardware is possible... but that's not the case today --
and i doubt many of you are using anything that could be considered open
hardware... almost certainly nobody is able to build an open hardware
platform with the same performance and quality standards as proprietary
hardware can achieve.
isn't there a bit of a double standard in place here?
i happen to put food on my table working at a hardware company; larry puts
food on his working at a software company. i happen to work at the same
hardware company as linus does: transmeta. every kernel for the past,
uh, 6 or 7 years, has included an advertisement for transmeta. could we
possibly conceive of removing all references to transmeta from the kernel,
mailing lists and archives? (oh i know if i go back that far in the
archives there was probably a big uproar when linus changed his email
address :)
-dean
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: double-standard? (Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree)
2002-04-22 20:37 ` double-standard? (Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree) dean gaudet
@ 2002-04-21 20:49 ` Daniel Phillips
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-21 20:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dean gaudet; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Monday 22 April 2002 22:37, dean gaudet wrote:
> i happen to put food on my table working at a hardware company; larry puts
> food on his working at a software company. i happen to work at the same
> hardware company as linus does: transmeta. every kernel for the past,
> uh, 6 or 7 years, has included an advertisement for transmeta. could we
> possibly conceive of removing all references to transmeta from the kernel,
> mailing lists and archives?
How big is the Transmeta ad? Does it have its own file? Would you be
satisfied if Bitkeeper had the same size advertisement as Transmeta?
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 19:06 ` dean gaudet
2002-04-21 14:53 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-21 20:22 ` Andrew Morton
2002-04-22 0:01 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-22 20:32 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2002-04-21 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: dean gaudet; +Cc: Daniel Phillips, Larry McVoy, Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
dean gaudet wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> > Riiiiight. I have at least forwarded your demands to those who have
> > expressed their positions to me privately. If you think I'm going to
> > violate their confidence on your whim, you can think again.
>
> so then you're having private discussions in email, and one of your
> complaints is about other private discussions in email?
>
The reason why people do not express their disquiet is very plain - any
time anyone dares comes out, they promptly get their head kicked in.
Guys, this problem is permanent, and it's not going away.
Larry has stated that kernel's use of bitkeeper is not providing
collateral sales, and nor was it intended for that. Fair enough.
But it's inevitable that, in some people's eyes, kernel's very
public use of bitkeeper be viewed as promotion of bitmover's
product, and as endorsement of bitmover's licensing innovations.
Some people don't like this, and never will. I'm tempted here to
say "get over it". This disagreement is a permanent part of the
kernel landscape.
Linus took the work of others and used it in a way which they did
not expect, without their permission, and contrary to their wishes.
He knew what he was doing, and he knew that some wouldn't like it.
If he had chosen any other path, he'd be juggling ascii diffs
until the end of time.
My take on Daniel's patch is that it is addressing the symptoms,
not the problem. And the problem is unsolveable. The differences
of opinion are irreconcilable. Both sides are populated by
perfectly sensible people with perfectly legitimate points of view.
So. Life goes on. We will have regular bitkeeper flamewars, and
that's a good thing - it reminds everyone that there are different
opinions and different work practices which need to be accommodated.
Oh. And the problem of stealth patches is a human one, not a tool
one. Tree owners should prefer to drop unreviewed patches. Not just
because said patches may have bugs which they miss. Not just because
having others check the work lightens their workload. Not just because
others may have other, different implementations in the works. But
also because it keeps everyone informed as to what's going on, and
generally makes for a better development team.
It would help to avoid, say, the situation where random fs maintainer
"A" is amazed to discover one day that a patch from random VFS maintainer
"B" had caused said filesystem to be doing a surprise "up" on a non-downed
semaphore. Not that this could ever happen.
-
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 20:22 ` [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree Andrew Morton
@ 2002-04-22 0:01 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-22 20:32 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2002-04-22 0:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton
Cc: dean gaudet, Daniel Phillips, Larry McVoy, Jeff Garzik,
linux-kernel
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 01:22:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> The reason why people do not express their disquiet is very plain - any
> time anyone dares comes out, they promptly get their head kicked in.
In the "let's be fair" department, it's obvious that there is enough
head kicking to go around on all sides, right? No answer needed...
> So. Life goes on. We will have regular bitkeeper flamewars, and
> that's a good thing - it reminds everyone that there are different
> opinions and different work practices which need to be accommodated.
If Daniel had started out this thread with
Hey, I've noticed that the BK patches aren't getting as much review
or notification on the lk list, is there something we can do about
that?
He would have gotten a useful answer in a few minutes, and we would have
moved on.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 20:22 ` [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree Andrew Morton
2002-04-22 0:01 ` Larry McVoy
@ 2002-04-22 20:32 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-22 20:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: dean gaudet, Daniel Phillips, Larry McVoy, linux-kernel
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 01:22:37PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> The reason why people do not express their disquiet is very plain - any
> time anyone dares comes out, they promptly get their head kicked in.
> Guys, this problem is permanent, and it's not going away.
Yeah, it's a problem with religious perspectives at this point, things
can occasionally get ugly :)
I'm really glad you are speaking up, though...
> Larry has stated that kernel's use of bitkeeper is not providing
> collateral sales, and nor was it intended for that. Fair enough.
> But it's inevitable that, in some people's eyes, kernel's very
> public use of bitkeeper be viewed as promotion of bitmover's
> product, and as endorsement of bitmover's licensing innovations.
Agreed -- but one can also see it just as real life, a compromise
with proven open source productivity gains. Linus, myself, and
others have repeatedly been saying that we would use a superior free
software tool...
At the end of the day, I think the open source cause is advanced by
this non-open-source tool, because Linux kernel development (or at
least the rate of patch application) is by all measures "faster."
By extension, discouraging use of BitKeeper when it is clearly useful
potentially harms the cause of open source.
> Linus took the work of others and used it in a way which they did
> not expect, without their permission, and contrary to their wishes.
> He knew what he was doing, and he knew that some wouldn't like it.
I think that's a bit unfair :( All Linus did was add an additional
method of patch transport... the source code is still the same
bitrotten hunk of poo we all know, love, and work on :)
> My take on Daniel's patch is that it is addressing the symptoms,
> not the problem. And the problem is unsolveable. The differences
> of opinion are irreconcilable. Both sides are populated by
> perfectly sensible people with perfectly legitimate points of view.
Pretty much my conclusion...
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
@ 2002-04-22 18:37 Jonathan A. George
2002-04-22 18:58 ` Jeff Garzik
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan A. George @ 2002-04-22 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: linux-kernel
Jeff,
The BK documentation constitutes an implicit advertisement and
endorsement of a product with a license which to many developers
violates the spirit of open source software. This is not to say that BK
is not an effective product, nor that the document in question is useful
for people who choose the tool, but to me it seems comparable to
including a closed source binary module in the kernel distribution.
Moving the document to the BK website would be nicer, and would
certainly assauge bad feelings regarding such an integral implicit
endorsement of a tool.
--Jonathan--
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-22 18:37 Jonathan A. George
@ 2002-04-22 18:58 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-22 19:19 ` Jonathan A. George
2002-04-22 21:53 ` Jonathan A. George
2002-04-22 19:47 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-04-22 21:13 ` Rik van Riel
2 siblings, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-22 18:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan A. George; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 01:37:19PM -0500, Jonathan A. George wrote:
> The BK documentation constitutes an implicit advertisement and
> endorsement of a product with a license which to many developers
> violates the spirit of open source software.
Agreed.
And the simple fact of Linus using BitKeeper does the
_exact_ _same_ _thing_.
Talk Linus out of using BitKeeper, and sure, I'll remove the doc.
> This is not to say that BK
> is not an effective product, nor that the document in question is useful
> for people who choose the tool, but to me it seems comparable to
> including a closed source binary module in the kernel distribution.
No, it is not comparable at all with that. There are no license
problems with the document -- it is GPL'd.
It describes the same thing as Documentation/SubmittingPatches does, and
is very relevant to kernel development.
> Moving the document to the BK website would be nicer, and would
> certainly assauge bad feelings regarding such an integral implicit
> endorsement of a tool.
Removing the doc from the kernel sources would be a token gesture only.
Some developers disagree violently with the use of non-open-source tools
at all, and that is a fundamental disagreement.
The majority of the "silently seething" developers, I imagine, are only
gonna be satisfied when (a) BitKeeper is GPL'd or (b) Linus stops using
BitKeeper. Both of these seem very remote possibilities at present.
Jeff
P.S. The doc is _not_ going on the BK website by my hand. (though I
have given BitMover permission to post the doc whereever they wish)
I can maintain my own docs much better than Larry can :)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-22 18:58 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-22 19:19 ` Jonathan A. George
2002-04-22 19:51 ` Alexander Viro
2002-04-22 19:52 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-22 21:53 ` Jonathan A. George
1 sibling, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan A. George @ 2002-04-22 19:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: linux-kernel
Jeff Garzik wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 01:37:19PM -0500, Jonathan A. George wrote:
>
>
>>The BK documentation constitutes an implicit advertisement and
>>endorsement of a product with a license which to many developers
>>violates the spirit of open source software.
>>
>Agreed.
>
>And the simple fact of Linus using BitKeeper does the
>_exact_ _same_ _thing_.
>
Not quite. Linus uses BK as a tool to facilitate kernel development.
However, he has not made BK _part_ _of_ _the_ _kernel_. ;-) Obviously
anyone can use any tool ON the kernel, but integrating into the kernel
is something else.
>Talk Linus out of using BitKeeper, and sure, I'll remove the doc.
>
No need. His tools are his choice. The kernel itself is ours not his;
thus the distinction.
>>This is not to say that BK
>>is not an effective product, nor that the document in question is useful
>>for people who choose the tool, but to me it seems comparable to
>>including a closed source binary module in the kernel distribution.
>>
>No, it is not comparable at all with that. There are no license
>problems with the document -- it is GPL'd.
>
The GPL has a specific intent which (though use in the kernel is more
like the LGPL because binary modules are permitted) which doesn't
explicitly extend to such documentation. The spirit of the GPL which
causes us to exclude binary modules from the distribution very much does
apply. To a lawyer this might not matter, but I expect more from a top
free software contributor like you.
>It describes the same thing as Documentation/SubmittingPatches does, and
>is very relevant to kernel development.
>
In fact I effectively noted its usefulness above. Thus no argument here.
>>Moving the document to the BK website would be nicer, and would
>>certainly assauge bad feelings regarding such an integral implicit
>>endorsement of a tool.
>>
>Removing the doc from the kernel sources would be a token gesture only.
>
I strongly disagree for the reasons I have noted.
>Some developers disagree violently with the use of non-open-source tools
>at all, and that is a fundamental disagreement.
>
>The majority of the "silently seething" developers, I imagine, are only
>gonna be satisfied when (a) BitKeeper is GPL'd or (b) Linus stops using
>BitKeeper. Both of these seem very remote possibilities at present.
>
Note: you are not quoting me here ;-) However, I completely agree.
> Jeff
>
>P.S. The doc is _not_ going on the BK website by my hand. (though I
>have given BitMover permission to post the doc whereever they wish)
>I can maintain my own docs much better than Larry can :)
>
That is a minor detail (as you know). My suggestion was an attempt to
balance the value of your admittedly useful document with the nature of
the endorsement.
--Jonathan--
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-22 19:19 ` Jonathan A. George
@ 2002-04-22 19:51 ` Alexander Viro
2002-04-22 19:56 ` Jonathan A. George
2002-04-22 19:52 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Alexander Viro @ 2002-04-22 19:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan A. George; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Jonathan A. George wrote:
> Not quite. Linus uses BK as a tool to facilitate kernel development.
> However, he has not made BK _part_ _of_ _the_ _kernel_. ;-) Obviously
> anyone can use any tool ON the kernel, but integrating into the kernel
> is something else.
>
> >Talk Linus out of using BitKeeper, and sure, I'll remove the doc.
> >
> No need. His tools are his choice. The kernel itself is ours not his;
> thus the distinction.
Bullshit. His copy is his. Mine is mine. Yours is yours. Each of
us is perfectly within his rights when he adds whatever patches he
likes.
And that's _it_. Linus has absolute control over his copy, as long
as he doesn't run afoul of copyright restrictions. So do I. So do
you. GPL explicitly allows to modify and redistribute result of
modifications. As the matter of fact, as soon as you attempt to
limit such right, you are losing all rights granted to you by GPL.
"Official" tree is the copy placed by Linus on ftp.kernel.org. And
as long as ftp.kernel.org admins keep his account (and write permissions
on directory in question) that copy is controlled by Linus. Period.
End of story. Linus has exactly the same rights as anybody else and
_everyone_ has a right to modify his copy as he likes.
If you don't like it - take it with RMS and FSF, who happen to feel
very strongly about that right. That's what GPL is about. If you
don't like modifications done by somebody, you have only one
recourse - you are allowed to back them off _in_ _your_ _copy_
and distribute that copy.
It's fscking amazing that self-proclaimed GPL advocates happily
ignore the main stated goal of GPL - to ensure that everybody will be
able to hack on his copy as he wants and share results with
everybody else. The fact that your modifications are in there
does not allow you to stop anybody else from further modifications.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-22 19:51 ` Alexander Viro
@ 2002-04-22 19:56 ` Jonathan A. George
2002-04-22 20:13 ` Alexander Viro
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan A. George @ 2002-04-22 19:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexander Viro; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
Alexander Viro wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Jonathan A. George wrote:
>
>>Not quite. Linus uses BK as a tool to facilitate kernel development.
>> However, he has not made BK _part_ _of_ _the_ _kernel_. ;-) Obviously
>>anyone can use any tool ON the kernel, but integrating into the kernel
>>is something else.
>>
>>>Talk Linus out of using BitKeeper, and sure, I'll remove the doc.
>>>
>>No need. His tools are his choice. The kernel itself is ours not his;
>> thus the distinction.
>>
>>
>
>Bullshit. His copy is his. Mine is mine. Yours is yours. Each of
>us is perfectly within his rights when he adds whatever patches he
>likes.
>
Both statements are true. Imagine that.
--Jonathan--
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-22 19:56 ` Jonathan A. George
@ 2002-04-22 20:13 ` Alexander Viro
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Alexander Viro @ 2002-04-22 20:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan A. George; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Jonathan A. George wrote:
> Alexander Viro wrote:
> >On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Jonathan A. George wrote:
> >>No need. His tools are his choice. The kernel itself is ours not his;
^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> thus the distinction.
> >
> >Bullshit. His copy is his. Mine is mine. Yours is yours. Each of
> >us is perfectly within his rights when he adds whatever patches he
> >likes.
> >
> Both statements are true. Imagine that.
So where the hell do you or anybody else get the right to prohibit him adding
GPLed file to his copy?
RTFGPL. Again, if you don't like said additions - fucking tough,
they are explicitly allowed by the license.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-22 19:19 ` Jonathan A. George
2002-04-22 19:51 ` Alexander Viro
@ 2002-04-22 19:52 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-22 19:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan A. George; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 02:19:13PM -0500, Jonathan A. George wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 01:37:19PM -0500, Jonathan A. George wrote:
> >
> >
> >>The BK documentation constitutes an implicit advertisement and
> >>endorsement of a product with a license which to many developers
> >>violates the spirit of open source software.
> >>
> >Agreed.
> >
> >And the simple fact of Linus using BitKeeper does the
> >_exact_ _same_ _thing_.
> >
> Not quite. Linus uses BK as a tool to facilitate kernel development.
> However, he has not made BK _part_ _of_ _the_ _kernel_. ;-) Obviously
> anyone can use any tool ON the kernel, but integrating into the kernel
> is something else.
That's a poor comparison, we are not integrating BitKeeper into the
kernel :)
Like or not, BK is used by several maintainers, including The Big
Penguin himself. There are plenty of good reasons why this doc
should be in the kernel source, only a single, lone reason against
it: some people don't like _talking_ about proprietary software in
the kernel sources.
> >Talk Linus out of using BitKeeper, and sure, I'll remove the doc.
> >
> No need. His tools are his choice. The kernel itself is ours not his;
> thus the distinction.
He is the gatekeeper. The kernel can be considered his, too, because it
is on his judgement that changes are accepted and rejected. If he uses
BitKeeper, and some maintainers find it easier to use BitKeeper, that's
a far stronger implicit advertisement for BitKeeper than some doc will
ever be. If Linus stopped using BitKeeper, that would provide incentive
for other maintainers to stop using BitKeeper, which in turn means there
is technical merit in the removal of the BK doc.
> >>This is not to say that BK
> >>is not an effective product, nor that the document in question is useful
> >>for people who choose the tool, but to me it seems comparable to
> >>including a closed source binary module in the kernel distribution.
> >>
> >No, it is not comparable at all with that. There are no license
> >problems with the document -- it is GPL'd.
> >
> The GPL has a specific intent which (though use in the kernel is more
> like the LGPL because binary modules are permitted) which doesn't
> explicitly extend to such documentation. The spirit of the GPL which
> causes us to exclude binary modules from the distribution very much does
> apply. To a lawyer this might not matter, but I expect more from a top
> free software contributor like you.
The doc is free by any standard. The _subject_ of the doc is not free.
There are plenty of documents talking about proprietary software
which are free, covered by the GNU FDL if not the GPL or some other
free license. Separate the licensing of the _subject_ of the doc,
from the doc itself.
I simply don't see a comparison at all. Closed source and binary
modules by definition hides IP from most. The doc is hiding nothing.
I don't think it will accomplish anything, but if it satisfies you or
others, I can change the doc's license to GNU FDL.
What matters to me is that other free software contributors are trying
to dictate what we can and cannot _talk about_ in the kernel sources.
> That is a minor detail (as you know). My suggestion was an attempt to
> balance the value of your admittedly useful document with the nature of
> the endorsement.
The nature of the endorsement is implicit when BK is used by kernel
developers, not when a doc is present.
I'm very open to suggestions about combatting the notion that BK
is required for kernel devel. Removing this doc may satisfy a few
people, but (a) it does not address the fundamental disagreement,
and (b) it is a slippery slope when we start removing docs because
we disagree with their subject on ideological grounds.
Even if I was completely anti-BitKeeper, pro-100%-open-source,
I would find Daniel's patch troubling because of "(b)"
Kernel source is no place to start drawing strict notions of what is
acceptable to discuss. I weigh that assertion above a token gesture to
the silently-seething developers that does nothing to change the real
status quo.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-22 18:58 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-22 19:19 ` Jonathan A. George
@ 2002-04-22 21:53 ` Jonathan A. George
1 sibling, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan A. George @ 2002-04-22 21:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: linux-kernel
Jeff Garzik wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 01:37:19PM -0500, Jonathan A. George wrote:
>
>
>>The BK documentation constitutes an implicit advertisement and
>>endorsement of a product with a license which to many developers
>>violates the spirit of open source software.
>>
<snip>
>>The majority of the "silently seething" developers, I imagine, are only
>>gonna be satisfied when (a) BitKeeper is GPL'd or (b) Linus stops using
>>BitKeeper. Both of these seem very remote possibilities at present.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
Pax. I think that Rik made a good point RE bluetooth support, and
obviously no one with cache in the kernel community cares enough about
the non-free implications of using BK (an admittedly good tool) to keep
the kernel source free of such endorsements. In conceding I appreciate
but disagree with your position. Oh, and of course Al showed his ass on
your behalf thus proving that intelligence and politeness are not related.
Respectfully,
Jonathan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-22 18:37 Jonathan A. George
2002-04-22 18:58 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-22 19:47 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-04-22 19:54 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-22 21:13 ` Rik van Riel
2 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Anton Altaparmakov @ 2002-04-22 19:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan A. George; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
At 19:37 22/04/02, Jonathan A. George wrote:
>Jeff,
>
>The BK documentation constitutes an implicit advertisement and endorsement
>of a product with a license which to many developers violates the spirit
>of open source software. This is not to say that BK is not an effective
>product, nor that the document in question is useful for people who choose
>the tool, but to me it seems comparable to including a closed source
>binary module in the kernel distribution. Moving the document to the BK
>website would be nicer, and would certainly assauge bad feelings regarding
>such an integral implicit endorsement of a tool.
>
>--Jonathan--
I hereby publically endorse the use of bitkeeper. I think it's a great tool
and I think anyone who is not using it is missing out. Anyone who asks me
what a good SCM to use is will hear "bitkeeper" from me. And I shall not
change my mind until a better or at least as good tool becomes available.
Taking out the document only because it describes a non-free tool is
ridiculous. I don't object to the removal per se. I could live with that. I
object to the REASONS for removal.
And I am prepared to speak for that, in case you hadn't noticed. (-;
How about that?
Best regards,
Anton
--
"I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cantab.net> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS Maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.openprojects.net
WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-22 19:47 ` Anton Altaparmakov
@ 2002-04-22 19:54 ` Jeff Garzik
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-22 19:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anton Altaparmakov; +Cc: Jonathan A. George, linux-kernel
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 08:47:39PM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> Taking out the document only because it describes a non-free tool is
> ridiculous. I don't object to the removal per se. I could live with that. I
> object to the REASONS for removal.
Likewise. This is perhaps saying it better than I have been...
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-22 18:37 Jonathan A. George
2002-04-22 18:58 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-22 19:47 ` Anton Altaparmakov
@ 2002-04-22 21:13 ` Rik van Riel
2 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Rik van Riel @ 2002-04-22 21:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan A. George; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Jonathan A. George wrote:
> The BK documentation constitutes an implicit advertisement and
> endorsement of a product with a license which to many developers
> violates the spirit of open source software.
Yeah right, just like having having drivers/bluetooth/ is
an implicit advertisement for bluetooth hardware ;)
Could you please get over the fact that people will always
include useful stuff into the kernel ?
regards,
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
@ 2002-04-19 15:12 Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 15:52 ` Jeff Garzik
` (4 more replies)
0 siblings, 5 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-19 15:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
Hi Linus,
I have up to this point been open to the use of Bitkeeper as a development
aid for Linux, and, again up to this point, have intended to make use of
Bitkeeper myself, taking a pragmatic attitude towards the concept of using
the best tool for the job. However, now I see that Bitkeeper documentation
has quietly been inserted ino the Linux Documentation directory, and that
without any apparent discussion on lkml. I fear that this demonstrates that
those who have called the use of Bitkeeper a slippery slope do have a point
after all.
I respectfully request that you consider applying the attached patch, which
reverses these proprietary additions to the Documentation directory. Perhaps
a better place for this documentation would be on kernel.org if Peter Anvin
agrees, or the submitter's own site if he does not. Or perhaps bitkeeper.com
would be willing to host these files.
Please do not misinterpret my position: I count Larry as something more than
a personal acquaintance. I strongly support his efforts to build a business
for himself out of his Bitkeeper creation. I even like Jeff Garzik's
documentation, the subject of this patch. I do not support the infusion of
documentation for proprietary software products into the Linux tree. The
message is that we have gone beyond optional usage of Bitkeeper here, and it
is now an absolute requirement, or it is on the way there.
I hope that this proposed patch will receive more discussion than the
original additions to Documentation did.
Thankyou,
Daniel
diff -uN --recursive linux-2.5.8.clean/Documentation/BK-usage/bk-kernel-howto.txt linux-2.5.8/Documentation/BK-usage/bk-kernel-howto.txt
--- linux-2.5.8.clean/Documentation/BK-usage/bk-kernel-howto.txt Sun Apr 14 15:18:43 2002
+++ linux-2.5.8/Documentation/BK-usage/bk-kernel-howto.txt Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969
@@ -1,275 +0,0 @@
-
- Doing the BK Thing, Penguin-Style
-
-
-
-
-This set of notes is intended mainly for kernel developers, occasional
-or full-time, but sysadmins and power users may find parts of it useful
-as well. It assumes at least a basic familiarity with CVS, both at a
-user level (use on the cmd line) and at a higher level (client-server model).
-Due to the author's background, an operation may be described in terms
-of CVS, or in terms of how that operation differs from CVS.
-
-This is -not- intended to be BitKeeper documentation. Always run
-"bk help <command>" or in X "bk helptool <command>" for reference
-documentation.
-
-
-BitKeeper Concepts
-------------------
-
-In the true nature of the Internet itself, BitKeeper is a distributed
-system. When applied to revision control, this means doing away with
-client-server, and changing to a parent-child model... essentially
-peer-to-peer. On the developer's end, this also represents a
-fundamental disruption in the standard workflow of changes, commits,
-and merges. You will need to take a few minutes to think about
-how to best work under BitKeeper, and re-optimize things a bit.
-In some sense it is a bit radical, because it might described as
-tossing changes out into a maelstrom and having them them magically
-land at the right destination... but I'm getting ahead of myself.
-
-Let's start with this progression:
-Each BitKeeper source tree on disk is a repository unto itself.
-Each repository has a parent.
-Each repository contains a set of a changsets ("csets").
-Each cset is one or more changed files, bundled together.
-
-Each tree is a repository, so all changes are checked into the local
-tree. When a change is checked in, all modified files are grouped
-into a logical unit, the changeset. Internally, BK links these
-changesets in a tree, representing various converging and diverging
-lines of development. These changesets are the bread and butter of
-the BK system.
-
-After the concept of changesets, the next thing you need to get used
-to having multiple copies of source trees lying around. This -really-
-takes some getting used to, for some people. Separate source trees
-are the means in BitKeeper by which you delineate parallel lines
-of development, both minor and major. What would be branches in
-CVS become separate source trees, or "clones" in BitKeeper [heh,
-or Star Wars] terminology.
-
-Clones and changesets are the tools from which most of the power of
-BitKeeper is derived. As mentioned earlier, each clone has a parent,
-the tree used as the source when the new clone was created. In a
-CVS-like setup, the parent would be a remote server on the Internet,
-and the child is your local clone of that tree.
-
-Once you have established a common baseline between two source trees --
-a common parent -- then you can merge changesets between those two
-trees with ease. Merging changes into a tree is called a "pull", and
-is analagous to 'cvs update'. A pull downloads all the changesets in
-the remote tree you do not have, and merges them. Sending changes in
-one tree to another tree is called a "push". Push sends all changes
-in the local tree the remote does not yet have, and merges them.
-
-From these concepts come some initial command examples:
-
-1) bk clone -q http://linux.bkbits.net/linux-2.5 linus-2.5
-Download a 2.5 stock kernel tree, naming it "linus-2.5" in the local dir.
-The "-q" disables listing every single file as it is downloaded.
-
-2) bk clone -ql linus-2.5 alpha-2.5
-Create a separate source tree for the Alpha AXP architecture.
-The "-l" uses hard links instead of copying data, since both trees are
-on the local disk. You can also replace the above with "bk lclone -q ..."
-
-You only clone a tree -once-. After cloning the tree lives a long time
-on disk, being updating by pushes and pulls.
-
-3) cd alpha-2.5 ; bk pull http://gkernel.bkbits.net/alpha-2.5
-Download changes in "alpha-2.5" repository which are not present
-in the local repository, and merge them into the source tree.
-
-4) bk -r co -q
-Because every tree is a repository, files must be checked out before
-they will be in their standard places in the source tree.
-
-5) bk vi fs/inode.c # example change...
- bk citool # checkin, using X tool
- bk push bk://gkernel@bkbits.net/alpha-2.5 # upload change
-Typical example of a BK sequence that would replace the analagous CVS
-situation,
- vi fs/inode.c
- cvs commit
-
-As this is just supposed to be a quick BK intro, for more in-depth
-tutorials, live working demos, and docs, see http://www.bitkeeper.com/
-
-
-
-BK and Kernel Development Workflow
-----------------------------------
-Currently the latest 2.5 tree is available via "bk clone $URL"
-and "bk pull $URL" at http://linux.bkbits.net/linux-2.5
-This should change in a few weeks to a kernel.org URL.
-
-
-A big part of using BitKeeper is organizing the various trees you have
-on your local disk, and organizing the flow of changes among those
-trees, and remote trees. If one were to graph the relationships between
-a desired BK setup, you are likely to see a few-many-few graph, like
-this:
-
- linux-2.5
- |
- merge-to-linus-2.5
- / | |
- / | |
- vm-hacks bugfixes filesys personal-hacks
- \ | | /
- \ | | /
- \ | | /
- testing-and-validation
-
-Since a "bk push" sends all changes not in the target tree, and
-since a "bk pull" receives all changes not in the source tree, you want
-to make sure you are only pushing specific changes to the desired tree,
-not all changes from "peer parent" trees. For example, pushing a change
-from the testing-and-validation tree would probably be a bad idea,
-because it will push all changes from vm-hacks, bugfixes, filesys, and
-personal-hacks trees into the target tree.
-
-One would typically work on only one "theme" at a time, either
-vm-hacks or bugfixes or filesys, keeping those changes isolated in
-their own tree during development, and only merge the isolated with
-other changes when going upstream (to Linus or other maintainers) or
-downstream (to your "union" trees, like testing-and-validation above).
-
-It should be noted that some of this separation is not just recommended
-practice, it's actually [for now] -enforced- by BitKeeper. BitKeeper
-requires that changesets maintain a certain order, which is the reason
-that "bk push" sends all local changesets the remote doesn't have. This
-separation may look like a lot of wasted disk space at first, but it
-helps when two unrelated changes may "pollute" the same area of code, or
-don't follow the same pace of development, or any other of the standard
-reasons why one creates a development branch.
-
-Small development branches (clones) will appear and disappear:
-
- -------- A --------- B --------- C --------- D -------
- \ /
- -----short-term devel branch-----
-
-While long-term branches will parallel a tree (or trees), with period
-merge points. In this first example, we pull from a tree (pulls,
-"\") periodically, such a what occurs when tracking changes in a
-vendor tree, never pushing changes back up the line:
-
- -------- A --------- B --------- C --------- D -------
- \ \ \
- ----long-term devel branch-----------------
-
-And then a more common case in Linux kernel development, a long term
-branch with periodic merges back into the tree (pushes, "/"):
-
- -------- A --------- B --------- C --------- D -------
- \ \ / \
- ----long-term devel branch-----------------
-
-
-
-
-
-Submitting Changes to Linus
----------------------------
-There's a bit of an art, or style, of submitting changes to Linus.
-Since Linus's tree is now (you might say) fully integrated into the
-distributed BitKeeper system, there are several prerequisites to
-properly submitting a BitKeeper change. All these prereq's are just
-general cleanliness of BK usage, so as people become experts at BK, feel
-free to optimize this process further (assuming Linus agrees, of
-course).
-
-
-
-0) Make sure your tree was originally cloned from the linux-2.5 tree
-created by Linus. If your tree does not have this as its ancestor, it
-is impossible to reliably exchanges changesets.
-
-
-
-1) Pay attention to your commit text. The commit message that
-accompanies each changeset you submit will live on forever in history,
-and is used by Linus to accurately summarize the changes in each
-pre-patch. Remember that there is no context, so
- "fix for new scheduler changes"
-would be too vague, but
- "fix mips64 arch for new scheduler switch_to(), TIF_xxx semantics"
-would be much better.
-
-You can and should use the command "bk comment -C<rev>" to update the
-commit text, and improve it after the fact. This is very useful for
-development: poor, quick descriptions during development, which get
-cleaned up using "bk comment" before issuing the "bk push" to submit the
-changes.
-
-
-
-2) Include an Internet-available URL for Linus to pull from, such as
-
- Pull from: http://gkernel.bkbits.net/net-drivers-2.5
-
-
-
-3) Include a summary and "diffstat -p1" of each changeset that will be
-downloaded, when Linus issues a "bk pull". The author auto-generates
-these summaries using "bk push -nl <parent> 2>&1", to obtain a listing
-of all the pending-to-send changesets, and their commit messages.
-
-It is important to show Linus what he will be downloading when he issues
-a "bk pull", to reduce the time required to sift the changes once they
-are downloaded to Linus's local machine.
-
-IMPORTANT NOTE: One of the features of BK is that your repository does
-not have to be up to date, in order for Linus to receive your changes.
-It is considered a courtesy to keep your repository fairly recent, to
-lessen any potential merge work Linus may need to do.
-
-
-4) Split up your changes. Each maintainer<->Linus situation is likely
-to be slightly different here, so take this just as general advice. The
-author splits up changes according to "themes" when merging with Linus.
-Simultaneous pushes from local development to goes special trees which
-exist solely to house changes "queued" for Linus. Example of the trees:
-
- net-drivers-2.5 -- on-going net driver maintenance
- vm-2.5 -- VM-related changes
- fs-2.5 -- filesystem-related changes
-
-Linus then has much more freedom for pulling changes. He could (for
-example) issue a "bk pull" on vm-2.5 and fs-2.5 trees, to merge their
-changes, but hold off net-drivers-2.5 because of a change that needs
-more discussion.
-
-Other maintainers may find that a single linus-pull-from tree is
-adequate for passing BK changesets to him.
-
-
-
-Frequently Answered Questions
------------------------------
-1) How do I change the e-mail address shown in the changelog?
-A. When you run "bk citool" or "bk commit", set environment
- variables BK_USER and BK_HOST to the desired username
- and host/domain name.
-
-
-2) How do I use tags / get a diff between two kernel versions?
-A. Pass the tags Linus uses to 'bk export'.
-
-ChangeSets are in a forward-progressing order, so it's pretty easy
-to get a snapshot starting and ending at any two points in time.
-Linus puts tags on each release and pre-release, so you could use
-these two examples:
-
- bk export -tpatch -hdu -rv2.5.4,v2.5.5 | less
- # creates patch-2.5.5 essentially
- bk export -tpatch -du -rv2.5.5-pre1,v2.5.5 | less
- # changes from pre1 to final
-
-A tag is just an alias for a specific changeset... and since changesets
-are ordered, a tag is thus a marker for a specific point in time (or
-specific state of the tree).
diff -uN --recursive linux-2.5.8.clean/Documentation/BK-usage/bk-make-sum linux-2.5.8/Documentation/BK-usage/bk-make-sum
--- linux-2.5.8.clean/Documentation/BK-usage/bk-make-sum Sun Apr 14 15:18:45 2002
+++ linux-2.5.8/Documentation/BK-usage/bk-make-sum Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969
@@ -1,37 +0,0 @@
-#!/bin/sh -e
-# DIR=$HOME/BK/axp-2.5
-# cd $DIR
-
-LINUS_REPO=$1
-DIRBASE=`basename $PWD`
-
-{
-cat <<EOT
-Linus, please do a
-
- bk pull http://gkernel.bkbits.net/$DIRBASE
-
-This will update the following files:
-
-EOT
-
-bk changes -L -d'$unless(:MERGE:){:CSETREV:\n}' $LINUS_REPO |
-while read rev; do
- bk export -tpatch -r$rev
-done | diffstat -p1 2>/dev/null
-
-cat <<EOT
-
-through these ChangeSets:
-
-EOT
-
-bk changes -L -d'$unless(:MERGE:){ChangeSet|:CSETREV:\n}' $LINUS_REPO |
-bk -R prs -h -d'$unless(:MERGE:){<:P:@:HOST:> (:D: :I:)\n$each(:C:){ (:C:)\n}\n}' -
-
-} > /tmp/linus.txt
-
-cat <<EOT
-Mail text in /tmp/linus.txt; please check and send using your favourite
-mailer.
-EOT
diff -uN --recursive linux-2.5.8.clean/Documentation/BK-usage/bksend linux-2.5.8/Documentation/BK-usage/bksend
--- linux-2.5.8.clean/Documentation/BK-usage/bksend Sun Apr 14 15:18:48 2002
+++ linux-2.5.8/Documentation/BK-usage/bksend Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969
@@ -1,36 +0,0 @@
-#!/bin/sh
-# A script to format BK changeset output in a manner that is easy to read.
-# Andreas Dilger <adilger@turbolabs.com> 13/02/2002
-#
-# Add diffstat output after Changelog <adilger@turbolabs.com> 21/02/2002
-
-PROG=bksend
-
-usage() {
- echo "usage: $PROG -r<rev>"
- echo -e "\twhere <rev> is of the form '1.23', '1.23..', '1.23..1.27',"
- echo -e "\tor '+' to indicate the most recent revision"
-
- exit 1
-}
-
-case $1 in
--r) REV=$2; shift ;;
--r*) REV=`echo $1 | sed 's/^-r//'` ;;
-*) echo "$PROG: no revision given, you probably don't want that";;
-esac
-
-[ -z "$REV" ] && usage
-
-echo "You can import this changeset into BK by piping this whole message to:"
-echo "'| bk receive [path to repository]' or apply the patch as usual."
-
-SEP="\n===================================================================\n\n"
-echo -e $SEP
-bk changes -r$REV
-echo
-bk export -tpatch -du -h -r$REV | diffstat
-echo; echo
-bk export -tpatch -du -h -r$REV
-echo -e $SEP
-bk send -wgzip_uu -r$REV -
diff -uN --recursive linux-2.5.8.clean/Documentation/BK-usage/bz64wrap linux-2.5.8/Documentation/BK-usage/bz64wrap
--- linux-2.5.8.clean/Documentation/BK-usage/bz64wrap Sun Apr 14 15:18:55 2002
+++ linux-2.5.8/Documentation/BK-usage/bz64wrap Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969
@@ -1,41 +0,0 @@
-#!/bin/sh
-
-# bz64wrap - the sending side of a bzip2 | base64 stream
-# Andreas Dilger <adilger@clusterfs.com> Jan 2002
-
-
-PATH=$PATH:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/freeware/bin
-
-# A program to generate base64 encoding on stdout
-BASE64_ENCODE="uuencode -m /dev/stdout"
-BASE64_BEGIN=
-BASE64_END=
-
-BZIP=NO
-BASE64=NO
-
-# Test if we have the bzip program installed
-bzip2 -c /dev/null > /dev/null 2>&1 && BZIP=YES
-
-# Test if uuencode can handle the -m (MIME) encoding option
-$BASE64_ENCODE < /dev/null > /dev/null 2>&1 && BASE64=YES
-
-if [ $BASE64 = NO ]; then
- BASE64_ENCODE=mimencode
- BASE64_BEGIN="begin-base64 644 -"
- BASE64_END="===="
-
- $BASE64_ENCODE < /dev/null > /dev/null 2>&1 && BASE64=YES
-fi
-
-if [ $BZIP = NO -o $BASE64 = NO ]; then
- echo "$0: can't use bz64 encoding: bzip2=$BZIP, $BASE64_ENCODE=$BASE64"
- exit 1
-fi
-
-# Sadly, mimencode does not appear to have good "begin" and "end" markers
-# like uuencode does, and it is picky about getting the right start/end of
-# the base64 stream, so we handle this internally.
-echo "$BASE64_BEGIN"
-bzip2 -9 | $BASE64_ENCODE
-echo "$BASE64_END"
diff -uN --recursive linux-2.5.8.clean/Documentation/BK-usage/cset-to-linus linux-2.5.8/Documentation/BK-usage/cset-to-linus
--- linux-2.5.8.clean/Documentation/BK-usage/cset-to-linus Sun Apr 14 15:18:45 2002
+++ linux-2.5.8/Documentation/BK-usage/cset-to-linus Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969
@@ -1,49 +0,0 @@
-#!/usr/bin/perl -w
-
-use strict;
-
-my ($lhs, $rev, $tmp, $rhs, $s);
-my @cset_text = ();
-my @pipe_text = ();
-my $have_cset = 0;
-
-while (<>) {
- next if /^---/;
-
- if (($lhs, $tmp, $rhs) = (/^(ChangeSet\@)([^,]+)(, .*)$/)) {
- &cset_rev if ($have_cset);
-
- $rev = $tmp;
- $have_cset = 1;
-
- push(@cset_text, $_);
- }
-
- elsif ($have_cset) {
- push(@cset_text, $_);
- }
-}
-&cset_rev if ($have_cset);
-exit(0);
-
-
-sub cset_rev {
- my $empty_cset = 0;
-
- open PIPE, "bk export -tpatch -hdu -r $rev | diffstat -p1 2>/dev/null |" or die;
- while ($s = <PIPE>) {
- $empty_cset = 1 if ($s =~ /0 files changed/);
- push(@pipe_text, $s);
- }
- close(PIPE);
-
- if (! $empty_cset) {
- print @cset_text;
- print @pipe_text;
- print "\n\n";
- }
-
- @pipe_text = ();
- @cset_text = ();
-}
-
diff -uN --recursive linux-2.5.8.clean/Documentation/BK-usage/csets-to-patches linux-2.5.8/Documentation/BK-usage/csets-to-patches
--- linux-2.5.8.clean/Documentation/BK-usage/csets-to-patches Sun Apr 14 15:18:56 2002
+++ linux-2.5.8/Documentation/BK-usage/csets-to-patches Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969
@@ -1,44 +0,0 @@
-#!/usr/bin/perl -w
-
-use strict;
-
-my ($lhs, $rev, $tmp, $rhs, $s);
-my @cset_text = ();
-my @pipe_text = ();
-my $have_cset = 0;
-
-while (<>) {
- next if /^---/;
-
- if (($lhs, $tmp, $rhs) = (/^(ChangeSet\@)([^,]+)(, .*)$/)) {
- &cset_rev if ($have_cset);
-
- $rev = $tmp;
- $have_cset = 1;
-
- push(@cset_text, $_);
- }
-
- elsif ($have_cset) {
- push(@cset_text, $_);
- }
-}
-&cset_rev if ($have_cset);
-exit(0);
-
-
-sub cset_rev {
- my $empty_cset = 0;
-
- system("bk export -tpatch -du -r $rev > /tmp/rev-$rev.patch");
-
- if (! $empty_cset) {
- print @cset_text;
- print @pipe_text;
- print "\n\n";
- }
-
- @pipe_text = ();
- @cset_text = ();
-}
-
diff -uN --recursive linux-2.5.8.clean/Documentation/BK-usage/unbz64wrap linux-2.5.8/Documentation/BK-usage/unbz64wrap
--- linux-2.5.8.clean/Documentation/BK-usage/unbz64wrap Sun Apr 14 15:18:52 2002
+++ linux-2.5.8/Documentation/BK-usage/unbz64wrap Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969
@@ -1,25 +0,0 @@
-#!/bin/sh
-
-# unbz64wrap - the receiving side of a bzip2 | base64 stream
-# Andreas Dilger <adilger@clusterfs.com> Jan 2002
-
-# Sadly, mimencode does not appear to have good "begin" and "end" markers
-# like uuencode does, and it is picky about getting the right start/end of
-# the base64 stream, so we handle this explicitly here.
-
-PATH=$PATH:/usr/bin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/freeware/bin
-
-if mimencode -u < /dev/null > /dev/null 2>&1 ; then
- SHOW=
- while read LINE; do
- case $LINE in
- begin-base64*) SHOW=YES ;;
- ====) SHOW= ;;
- *) [ "$SHOW" ] && echo $LINE ;;
- esac
- done | mimencode -u | bunzip2
- exit $?
-else
- cat - | uudecode -o /dev/stdout | bunzip2
- exit $?
-fi
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 15:12 Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-20 15:52 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 16:16 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-20 16:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-20 15:54 ` Jeff Garzik
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-20 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 05:12:33PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> I have up to this point been open to the use of Bitkeeper as a development
> aid for Linux, and, again up to this point, have intended to make use of
> Bitkeeper myself, taking a pragmatic attitude towards the concept of using
> the best tool for the job. However, now I see that Bitkeeper documentation
> has quietly been inserted ino the Linux Documentation directory, and that
> without any apparent discussion on lkml. I fear that this demonstrates that
> those who have called the use of Bitkeeper a slippery slope do have a point
> after all.
Guess what? You have the freedom to ignore these docs.
Guess what else? You are taking away freedoms by restricting speech,
making documents less available than they previously were.
Take your closed mind elsewhere. I'm pretty sure Linus has more sense
than to apply this patch.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 15:52 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-20 16:16 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-20 16:25 ` David Lang
2002-04-20 16:25 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 16:37 ` Linus Torvalds
1 sibling, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Roman Zippel @ 2002-04-20 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: Daniel Phillips, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
Hi,
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Guess what else? You are taking away freedoms by restricting speech,
> making documents less available than they previously were.
So we soon include cvs/rcs/sccs/arch/subversion/aegis/prcs usage
information as well?
You certainly don't want to restrict the freedoms of other users?
bye, Roman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 16:16 ` Roman Zippel
@ 2002-04-20 16:25 ` David Lang
2002-04-20 17:05 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-20 16:25 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: David Lang @ 2002-04-20 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roman Zippel; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, Daniel Phillips, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
If they start to be tools that are used to submit changes to the kernel
then yes they should be included.
remember that the reason for the bitkeeper documentation is to help people
setup a tree that linux (and others) can pull from, not to help people
setup their own tree just for them to hack on. Currently none of the tree
maintainers use cvs/rcs/sccs/arch/subversion/aegis/prcs in such a way that
there is anything that someone hacking the kernel needs to do to be
compatable (other then following the existing documentation for sending
patches) but for bitkeeper there is so this documentation is needed.
David Lang
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> > Guess what else? You are taking away freedoms by restricting speech,
> > making documents less available than they previously were.
>
> So we soon include cvs/rcs/sccs/arch/subversion/aegis/prcs usage
> information as well?
> You certainly don't want to restrict the freedoms of other users?
>
> bye, Roman
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 16:25 ` David Lang
@ 2002-04-20 17:05 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-20 17:16 ` Linus Torvalds
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Roman Zippel @ 2002-04-20 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Lang; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, Daniel Phillips, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
Hi,
David Lang wrote:
> If they start to be tools that are used to submit changes to the kernel
> then yes they should be included.
"start"? People used other source management system already before bk.
> remember that the reason for the bitkeeper documentation is to help people
> setup a tree that linux (and others) can pull from, not to help people
> setup their own tree just for them to hack on.
The problem is that this suggest, bk would be the choice for kernel
development or even usage. They are lots of kernel projects, which use
cvs, but noone before considered submitting extensive cvs documentation
into the kernel.
bye, Roman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 17:05 ` Roman Zippel
@ 2002-04-20 17:16 ` Linus Torvalds
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2002-04-20 17:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roman Zippel; +Cc: David Lang, Jeff Garzik, Daniel Phillips, linux-kernel
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Roman Zippel wrote:
>
> They are lots of kernel projects, which use cvs, but noone before
> considered submitting extensive cvs documentation into the kernel.
More importantly, there was no way in hell I would synchronize with a CVS
tree, so CVS was a non-entity as far as patch submittal was concerned.
The BK documentation is _nothing_ more than a alternative to
"SubmittingPatches".
Anyway, I'm not going to discuss this any more. If somebody has actual
construcive ideas about trying to improve other tools or putting the BK
docs in some place that is equally obvious and easily available for all
parties but somehow "less disturbing" to people with a weak stomach, go
for it. But I'm not interested in yet another religious whine-war.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 16:16 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-20 16:25 ` David Lang
@ 2002-04-20 16:25 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-19 16:33 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 17:19 ` Roman Zippel
1 sibling, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-20 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roman Zippel; +Cc: Daniel Phillips, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 06:16:48PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> > Guess what else? You are taking away freedoms by restricting speech,
> > making documents less available than they previously were.
>
> So we soon include cvs/rcs/sccs/arch/subversion/aegis/prcs usage
> information as well?
> You certainly don't want to restrict the freedoms of other users?
Two issues here:
1) Daniel was attempting a 'remove' operation, you are describing an
'add'. The operations do the exact opposite in terms of information
dissemination.
2) If someone writes a good guide to using Arch with the Linux kernel,
or subversion, I don't have an objection to putting it into
Documentation.
Daniel disagrees with the content of the speech in
Documentation/BK-usage, based on his ideology. And he attempted to
restrict the dissemination of that speech. What is the definition
of censorship again?
People may think I'm just pissed because it's my doc he wanted to
remove, but that's only partially true. I see this as a clear cut
case of Daniel's ideology pushing him to attempt to restrict speech.
That is anti-freedom, no matter how you look at it, regardless of
whether we are talking about BitKeeper or anything else.
Maybe we should have warning labels on software, indicating that
a product does not conform completely to some idealist notion of
free software.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 16:25 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-19 16:33 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 16:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-20 17:19 ` Roman Zippel
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-19 16:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik, Roman Zippel; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:25, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 06:16:48PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > > Guess what else? You are taking away freedoms by restricting speech,
> > > making documents less available than they previously were.
> >
> > So we soon include cvs/rcs/sccs/arch/subversion/aegis/prcs usage
> > information as well?
> > You certainly don't want to restrict the freedoms of other users?
>
> Two issues here:
> 1) Daniel was attempting a 'remove' operation, you are describing an
> 'add'. The operations do the exact opposite in terms of information
> dissemination.
No I do not. Read the post. I suggested placing the documentation on
kernel.org, on your site, or on bitmover.com where it belongs. This
documentation for a proprietary software product does not belong in the
Linux kernel tree itself. It is nothing less than an advertisement.
Was it paid for?
(And there you may have an argument that would satisfy me. However, it
is not me I'm worried about. It is the other kernel developers who are
silently seething at this situation. Yes they are, use your ears.)
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 16:33 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-20 16:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-19 17:17 ` Daniel Phillips
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2002-04-20 16:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, Roman Zippel, linux-kernel
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> No I do not. Read the post. I suggested placing the documentation on
> kernel.org, on your site, or on bitmover.com where it belongs.
That was not what your patch did.
> (And there you may have an argument that would satisfy me. However, it
> is not me I'm worried about. It is the other kernel developers who are
> silently seething at this situation. Yes they are, use your ears.)
I would suggest that if you are silently seething about the fact that a
commercial product can do something better than a free one, how about
_doing_ something about it?
Quite frankly, I don't _want_ people using Linux for ideological reasons.
I think ideology sucks. This world would be a much better place if people
had less ideology, and a whole lot more "I do this because it's FUN and
because others might find it useful, not because I got religion".
Would I prefer to use a tool that didn't have any restrictions on it for
kernel maintenance? Yes. But since no such tool exists, and since I'm
personally not very interested in writing one, _and_ since I don't have
any hangups about using the right tool for the job, I use BitKeeper.
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 ;), and I have
absolutely no interest in web page design. So when I got tired of
explaining how to use BK, I asked Jeff to just send me a patch so that I
could point people to the only thing I _do_ care about, ie the kernel
sources.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 16:56 ` Linus Torvalds
@ 2002-04-19 17:17 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 17:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-20 17:38 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-04-21 2:26 ` Ian Molton
2 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-19 17:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, Roman Zippel, linux-kernel
On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:56, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >
> > No I do not. Read the post. I suggested placing the documentation on
> > kernel.org, on your site, or on bitmover.com where it belongs.
>
> That was not what your patch did.
Oh, please show me how and I will do it gladly. I just don't know how to
make diff+patch do that.
> > (And there you may have an argument that would satisfy me. However, it
> > is not me I'm worried about. It is the other kernel developers who are
> > silently seething at this situation. Yes they are, use your ears.)
>
> I would suggest that if you are silently seething about the fact that a
> commercial product can do something better than a free one,
You got that right.
> how about _doing_ something about it?
However, first I personally do not want to start that project. Firstly, I
do personally like Larry and do not want to be part of a horde bent on
tearing down his business. There are after all, plenty of genuinely nasty
things out there to attack, attacking Larry as *way* down my list. More
importantly, my time is better spent improving Linux.
> Quite frankly, I don't _want_ people using Linux for ideological reasons.
> I think ideology sucks. This world would be a much better place if people
> had less ideology, and a whole lot more "I do this because it's FUN and
> because others might find it useful, not because I got religion".
That's the point. It is not fun to see the whole thing start tearing itself
apart. Fun is being on the winning side. Fun is not dealing with a lot of
stressed out people with agendas.
> Would I prefer to use a tool that didn't have any restrictions on it for
> kernel maintenance? Yes. But since no such tool exists, and since I'm
> personally not very interested in writing one, _and_ since I don't have
> any hangups about using the right tool for the job, I use BitKeeper.
I use it too. I do not think it belongs in the tree, especially not with its
own directory. My point, pure and simple.
> 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 ;), and I have
> absolutely no interest in web page design. So when I got tired of
> explaining how to use BK, I asked Jeff to just send me a patch so that I
> could point people to the only thing I _do_ care about, ie the kernel
> sources.
But did you think it might be controversial?
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 17:17 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-20 17:35 ` Linus Torvalds
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2002-04-20 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, Roman Zippel, linux-kernel
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> But did you think it might be controversial?
Ehh, the documentaion? Nope, I didn't really think _that_ part would be
controversial.
The change to BK? I sure as hell knew that was going to be "interesting",
yes absolutely. After all, it had been discussed at places like the kernel
summit etc.
But hey - I've never really cared about what other people think about what
I do. If I had, I'd have given up on Linux when Tanenbaum ridiculed it. Or
I wouldn't have done the big dentry change (which was a total disaster in
some peoples minds) in 2.1.x. Or the VM changeover in the middle of 2.4.x.
Or a million other things.
I do what _I_ think is right for the kernel, and while I tend to poll
people and listen to them, when the sh*t hits the fan it is _my_ decision.
You can't please everybody. And usually if you _try_ to please everybody,
the end result is one big mess.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 16:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-19 17:17 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-20 17:38 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-04-21 2:26 ` Ian Molton
2 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Thunder from the hill @ 2002-04-20 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linux Kernel
Hi,
> Quite frankly, I don't _want_ people using Linux for ideological reasons.
> I think ideology sucks. This world would be a much better place if people
> had less ideology, and a whole lot more "I do this because it's FUN and
> because others might find it useful, not because I got religion".
Several guys (mis-)use Linux as war against Windows, which is really
childish. But it seems they're an important amount, on both sides (There
are even users who use Windows as a protest against Linux). That does,
however, not help you to get an non-propietary tool.
As long as there is nothing I could use instead, it's a good idea to use
BitKeeper instead, and as long as there is a way to use it, users will
actually look it up in the Documentation dir. If users don't find an
answer there, they'll certainly massively bother the LKML.
Documentation also contains information on how to use existing tools
with Linux Kernel. If we exclude BitKeeper just because it's propietary
tool, we'll get into trouble.
BTW, why then do we include processor support into the kernel tree? I
can't find any way to download them from the Internet!
Regards,
Thunder
--
Thunder from the hill.
Not a citizen of any town. Not a citizen of any state.
Not a citizen of any country. Not a citizen of any planet.
Citizen of our universe.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 16:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-19 17:17 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 17:38 ` Thunder from the hill
@ 2002-04-21 2:26 ` Ian Molton
2 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Ian Molton @ 2002-04-21 2:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: phillips, garzik, zippel, linux-kernel
Linus Torvalds Awoke this dragon, who will now respond:
> "I do this because it's FUN and
> because others might find it useful, not because I got religion".
Dude, I agree, but that is your /IDEOLOGY/, is it not?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 16:25 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-19 16:33 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-20 17:19 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-20 21:03 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Roman Zippel @ 2002-04-20 17:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: Daniel Phillips, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
Hi,
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Daniel disagrees with the content of the speech in
> Documentation/BK-usage, based on his ideology. And he attempted to
> restrict the dissemination of that speech. What is the definition
> of censorship again?
Maybe I was to subtle, but your censorship argument is simply bullshit.
A link to the information is completely sufficient. The only question
is, whether the information is relevant for kernel development and most
of it is only bk documentation.
bye, Roman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 17:19 ` Roman Zippel
@ 2002-04-20 21:03 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 21:36 ` Skip Ford
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-20 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roman Zippel; +Cc: Daniel Phillips, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 07:19:23PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> > Daniel disagrees with the content of the speech in
> > Documentation/BK-usage, based on his ideology. And he attempted to
> > restrict the dissemination of that speech. What is the definition
> > of censorship again?
>
> 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.
He just implied that people need to step up and do this work for him.
Daniel attempted to remove speech he disgreed with from wide
distribution -- on distro CDs, kernel.org mirrors, etc. I am hoping
it is plainly obvious that removing a doc from one of the mostly
widely distributed open source projects reduces the doc's distribution
dramatically. _That_ is a form of censorship, just like buying out
printing presses, to silence them, in the old days. It's still
around... just progressively harder to obtain.
> The only question
> is, whether the information is relevant for kernel development and most
> of it is only bk documentation.
And the answer is, it is BK documentation written for kernel developers
by kernel developers, with the intention of being a SubmittingPatches
document for BK users. Very relevant to kernel devel. This relevance
was proved by its origin -- emails bouncing back and forth, generally
originating by Linus, CC'ing me, asking me for the emails I had
already sent to other hackers, describing kernel development under BK.
After the info had been separately requested multiple times, it
got turned into a document -- the BK version of SubmittingPatches.
After that doc was requested multiple times, it went to the same
place where SubmittingPatches is stored.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 21:03 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-20 21:36 ` Skip Ford
2002-04-20 21:40 ` Rik van Riel
2002-04-20 21:53 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 0:04 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-21 2:30 ` Ian Molton
2 siblings, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Skip Ford @ 2002-04-20 21:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: linux-kernel
Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> And the answer is, it is BK documentation written for kernel developers
> by kernel developers, with the intention of being a SubmittingPatches
> document for BK users. Very relevant to kernel devel. This relevance
> was proved by its origin -- emails bouncing back and forth, generally
> originating by Linus, CC'ing me, asking me for the emails I had
> already sent to other hackers, describing kernel development under BK.
That's not true. Section 1 of 'SubmittingPatches' is entitled
"Creating and Sending Your Change" while section 1 of your
bk bullshit is called "Bitkeeper Concepts."
All of section 1 is an advertisement for using bk...including
directions on how to setup your own clone. Those are _clearly_
bitkeeper directions and have nothing to do with how to submit
patches.
Delete sections 1 & 2 and make section 3 the gist of the document
and _then_ you'll have the bk equivalent of 'SubmittingPatches.'
--
Skip
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 21:36 ` Skip Ford
@ 2002-04-20 21:40 ` Rik van Riel
2002-04-20 23:14 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-20 21:53 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Rik van Riel @ 2002-04-20 21:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Skip Ford; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Skip Ford wrote:
> All of section 1 is an advertisement for using bk...including
> directions on how to setup your own clone. Those are _clearly_
> bitkeeper directions and have nothing to do with how to submit
> patches.
I'm sure Jeff would be more than happy to include an
advertisement for a free bitkeeper alternative, once
one exists. ;)
regards,
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 21:40 ` Rik van Riel
@ 2002-04-20 23:14 ` Larry McVoy
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2002-04-20 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Skip Ford, Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Skip Ford wrote:
> > All of section 1 is an advertisement for using bk...including
> > directions on how to setup your own clone. Those are _clearly_
> > bitkeeper directions and have nothing to do with how to submit
> > patches.
>
> I'm sure Jeff would be more than happy to include an
> advertisement for a free bitkeeper alternative, once
> one exists. ;)
And the sooner the better. I just read this entire thread and I'm disgusted.
I've seen some lame threads in my day, but this takes the cake.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 21:36 ` Skip Ford
2002-04-20 21:40 ` Rik van Riel
@ 2002-04-20 21:53 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-20 21:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 05:36:45PM -0400, Skip Ford wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > And the answer is, it is BK documentation written for kernel developers
> > by kernel developers, with the intention of being a SubmittingPatches
> > document for BK users. Very relevant to kernel devel. This relevance
> > was proved by its origin -- emails bouncing back and forth, generally
> > originating by Linus, CC'ing me, asking me for the emails I had
> > already sent to other hackers, describing kernel development under BK.
>
> That's not true. Section 1 of 'SubmittingPatches' is entitled
> "Creating and Sending Your Change" while section 1 of your
> bk bullshit is called "Bitkeeper Concepts."
>
> All of section 1 is an advertisement for using bk...including
> directions on how to setup your own clone. Those are _clearly_
> bitkeeper directions and have nothing to do with how to submit
> patches.
What you call an ad is the result of evolution of several resendings
of similar emails, and answering FAQs. This is the stuff that has
proven useful over time.
To call that an advertisement is to insult the kernel developers
that asked these questions, which are answered in the doc. They were
not requesting endorsements, they were asking honest questions about
ways to optimize their kernel development, and merging with Linus.
Responding with an intro on how BK clones work has proven to be a
good first step to that.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 21:03 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 21:36 ` Skip Ford
@ 2002-04-21 0:04 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-21 0:17 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-21 16:32 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 2:30 ` Ian Molton
2 siblings, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Roman Zippel @ 2002-04-21 0:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: Daniel Phillips, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
Hi,
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> What was Daniel's action? Remove the text. Nothing else. Sure, he
> suggested other options, but he did attempt to implement them? No.
> He just implied that people need to step up and do this work for him.
He made his intention very clear, you are interpreting something in his
action, that simply isn't there.
> Daniel attempted to remove speech he disgreed with from wide
> distribution -- on distro CDs, kernel.org mirrors, etc. I am hoping
> it is plainly obvious that removing a doc from one of the mostly
> widely distributed open source projects reduces the doc's distribution
> dramatically. _That_ is a form of censorship, just like buying out
> printing presses, to silence them, in the old days. It's still
> around... just progressively harder to obtain.
Censorship requires the means to enforce it and has Daniel this ability?
Could we please stop these "censorship" and "ideology" arguments? In
this context they are simply nonsense.
> And the answer is, it is BK documentation written for kernel developers
> by kernel developers, with the intention of being a SubmittingPatches
> document for BK users. Very relevant to kernel devel. This relevance
> was proved by its origin -- emails bouncing back and forth, generally
> originating by Linus, CC'ing me, asking me for the emails I had
> already sent to other hackers, describing kernel development under BK.
kernel development with bk requires net access and so it's sufficient,
when it's available over the net. On the other hand SubmittingPatches
describes the lowest common denominator, which works with any SCM and
doesn't favour any of them.
Personally I don't care what tools people use, but I'm getting
concerned, when a nonfree tool is advertised as tool of choice for
kernel for development as if there would be no choice. bk has advantages
for distributed development, but beside of this they are alternatives
and we should rather encourage users to try them and to help with the
development of them. But there isn't anything like that, so Joe Hacker
has to think he should use bk as SCM to get his patch into the kernel,
because Linus is using it.
bye, Roman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 0:04 ` Roman Zippel
@ 2002-04-21 0:17 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-21 9:22 ` Jochen Friedrich
2002-04-21 16:32 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2002-04-21 0:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roman Zippel; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, Daniel Phillips, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 02:04:07AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> kernel development with bk requires net access and so it's sufficient,
> when it's available over the net. On the other hand SubmittingPatches
> describes the lowest common denominator, which works with any SCM and
> doesn't favour any of them.
Huh? BK requires no more net access than you require when submitting
a regular patch. You need to be connected to move the bits. Working
disconnected is one of the things BK does best, compare it to any other
tool and you can do far more with BK unconnected, simply because BK
takes the history with you.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 0:17 ` Larry McVoy
@ 2002-04-21 9:22 ` Jochen Friedrich
2002-04-21 10:05 ` Thunder from the hill
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jochen Friedrich @ 2002-04-21 9:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Larry McVoy
Cc: Roman Zippel, Jeff Garzik, Daniel Phillips, Linus Torvalds,
linux-kernel
Hi Larry,
> Huh? BK requires no more net access than you require when submitting
> a regular patch. You need to be connected to move the bits.
Wrong. Many corporate firewalls allow email and http (both via proxy) and
reject any other traffic. CVS and BK are both unusable in this
environment.
--jochen
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 9:22 ` Jochen Friedrich
@ 2002-04-21 10:05 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-04-21 10:17 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-04-21 11:10 ` Anton Altaparmakov
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Thunder from the hill @ 2002-04-21 10:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jochen Friedrich
Cc: Larry McVoy, Roman Zippel, Jeff Garzik, Daniel Phillips,
linux-kernel
Hi,
Could you please stop carbon copying to Linux? I'd be very pissed to
receive huge amounts of carbon copies about subjects that don't even
matter to me!
About the Corporate Firewalls issue, even though Linus didn't like it,
Hans Reiser submitted a few patches as Bitkeeper patches. It doesn't
exactly seem impossible to me. Also, if you don't have the ability to use
Bk for whatever reason, no one will ever forbid you to submit patches.
Regards,
Thunder
--
Thunder from the hill.
Not a citizen of any town. Not a citizen of any state.
Not a citizen of any country. Not a citizen of any planet.
Citizen of our universe.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 10:05 ` Thunder from the hill
@ 2002-04-21 10:17 ` Thunder from the hill
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Thunder from the hill @ 2002-04-21 10:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thunder from the hill
Cc: Jochen Friedrich, Larry McVoy, Roman Zippel, Jeff Garzik,
Daniel Phillips, linux-kernel
Hi,
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, Thunder from the hill wrote:
> Could you please stop carbon copying to Linux?
Oops, that's a typo. I meant Linus, of course.
Regards,
Thunder
--
Thunder from the hill.
Not a citizen of any town. Not a citizen of any state.
Not a citizen of any country. Not a citizen of any planet.
Citizen of our universe.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 9:22 ` Jochen Friedrich
2002-04-21 10:05 ` Thunder from the hill
@ 2002-04-21 11:10 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-04-21 16:46 ` Jochen Friedrich
2002-04-21 13:18 ` Rik van Riel
2002-04-21 15:17 ` Jeff Garzik
3 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Anton Altaparmakov @ 2002-04-21 11:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jochen Friedrich
Cc: Larry McVoy, Roman Zippel, Jeff Garzik, Daniel Phillips,
linux-kernel
<taken Linus out of cc: list>
At 10:22 21/04/02, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
>Hi Larry,
>
> > Huh? BK requires no more net access than you require when submitting
> > a regular patch. You need to be connected to move the bits.
>
>Wrong. Many corporate firewalls allow email and http (both via proxy) and
>reject any other traffic. CVS and BK are both unusable in this
>environment.
Not wrong. BK works fine over http protocol. CVS is another matter which I
cannot comment on...
Best regards,
Anton
--
"I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cantab.net> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS Maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.openprojects.net
WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 11:10 ` Anton Altaparmakov
@ 2002-04-21 16:46 ` Jochen Friedrich
2002-04-21 17:00 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-21 17:05 ` Anton Altaparmakov
0 siblings, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jochen Friedrich @ 2002-04-21 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anton Altaparmakov
Cc: Larry McVoy, Roman Zippel, Jeff Garzik, Daniel Phillips,
linux-kernel
Hi Anton,
> >Wrong. Many corporate firewalls allow email and http (both via proxy) and
> >reject any other traffic. CVS and BK are both unusable in this
> >environment.
>
> Not wrong. BK works fine over http protocol. CVS is another matter which I
> cannot comment on...
Ok, but there are other scenarios where only email is available (often via
mail gateways like softswitch on os/390)...
--jochen
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 16:46 ` Jochen Friedrich
@ 2002-04-21 17:00 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-21 17:05 ` Anton Altaparmakov
1 sibling, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2002-04-21 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jochen Friedrich
Cc: Anton Altaparmakov, Larry McVoy, Roman Zippel, Jeff Garzik,
Daniel Phillips, linux-kernel
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 06:46:07PM +0200, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> > >Wrong. Many corporate firewalls allow email and http (both via proxy) and
> > >reject any other traffic. CVS and BK are both unusable in this
> > >environment.
> >
> > Not wrong. BK works fine over http protocol. CVS is another matter which I
> > cannot comment on...
>
> Ok, but there are other scenarios where only email is available (often via
> mail gateways like softswitch on os/390)...
BK works with email as its only transport and has for a long time.
bk help send
bk help receive
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 16:46 ` Jochen Friedrich
2002-04-21 17:00 ` Larry McVoy
@ 2002-04-21 17:05 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-04-21 17:14 ` Larry McVoy
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Anton Altaparmakov @ 2002-04-21 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jochen Friedrich
Cc: Larry McVoy, Roman Zippel, Jeff Garzik, Daniel Phillips,
linux-kernel
Hi,
At 17:46 21/04/02, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> > >Wrong. Many corporate firewalls allow email and http (both via proxy) and
> > >reject any other traffic. CVS and BK are both unusable in this
> > >environment.
> >
> > Not wrong. BK works fine over http protocol. CVS is another matter which I
> > cannot comment on...
>
>Ok, but there are other scenarios where only email is available (often via
>mail gateways like softswitch on os/390)...
Then use BK over email then (to submit a patch of your last change set for
example you would do "bk export -tpatch -r+", and the receiving end does a
simple "cat emailmessagetext | bk receive" and that's it done.
Obviously you haven't looked at bitkeeper... (-;
Anton
ps. You better be prepared to accept very large emails if you want to send
a whole linux kernel repository by email though! Never mind if you are
using bitkeeper or just a tar ball!
--
"I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cantab.net> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS Maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.openprojects.net
WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 17:05 ` Anton Altaparmakov
@ 2002-04-21 17:14 ` Larry McVoy
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2002-04-21 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anton Altaparmakov
Cc: Jochen Friedrich, Larry McVoy, Roman Zippel, Jeff Garzik,
Daniel Phillips, linux-kernel
Hi Anton,
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 06:05:43PM +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> Then use BK over email then (to submit a patch of your last change set for
> example you would do "bk export -tpatch -r+", and the receiving end does a
> simple "cat emailmessagetext | bk receive" and that's it done.
This is almost right and I can see there is some confusion, so here's
son technical info in the midst of this, err, "discussion" :-)
If you want to send a regular style patch
bk export -tpatch -r+ # send most recent changeset
bk import -tpatch # accept regular patch
If you want to send BK style patches
bk send user@host.com
bk receive
NOTE! bk send will send *everything* it has not already sent to that
email address, i.e., the whole tree. See the "bk help send" docs for
info on how to tell BK that the user already has part of the tree.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 9:22 ` Jochen Friedrich
2002-04-21 10:05 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-04-21 11:10 ` Anton Altaparmakov
@ 2002-04-21 13:18 ` Rik van Riel
2002-04-21 13:41 ` yodaiken
2002-04-21 15:17 ` Jeff Garzik
3 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Rik van Riel @ 2002-04-21 13:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jochen Friedrich
Cc: Larry McVoy, Roman Zippel, Jeff Garzik, Daniel Phillips,
linux-kernel
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> > Huh? BK requires no more net access than you require when submitting
> > a regular patch. You need to be connected to move the bits.
>
> Wrong. Many corporate firewalls allow email and http (both via proxy) and
> reject any other traffic. CVS and BK are both unusable in this
> environment.
So you're telling me that what I've been doing over the
last months really shouldn't have been possible ?
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 13:18 ` Rik van Riel
@ 2002-04-21 13:41 ` yodaiken
2002-04-21 16:50 ` Jochen Friedrich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: yodaiken @ 2002-04-21 13:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rik van Riel
Cc: Jochen Friedrich, Larry McVoy, Roman Zippel, Jeff Garzik,
Daniel Phillips, linux-kernel
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 10:18:34AM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
>
> > > Huh? BK requires no more net access than you require when submitting
> > > a regular patch. You need to be connected to move the bits.
> >
> > Wrong. Many corporate firewalls allow email and http (both via proxy) and
> > reject any other traffic. CVS and BK are both unusable in this
> > environment.
>
> So you're telling me that what I've been doing over the
> last months really shouldn't have been possible ?
What he is telling you is that people whose business is hidden
behind corporate firewalls so that they can make money with proprietary
work, find it morally outrageous that other people don't give away all
their work.
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Victor Yodaiken
Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company.
www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 13:41 ` yodaiken
@ 2002-04-21 16:50 ` Jochen Friedrich
2002-04-21 17:18 ` yodaiken
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jochen Friedrich @ 2002-04-21 16:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: yodaiken
Cc: Rik van Riel, Larry McVoy, Roman Zippel, Jeff Garzik,
Daniel Phillips, linux-kernel
Hi,
> > So you're telling me that what I've been doing over the
> > last months really shouldn't have been possible ?
>
> What he is telling you is that people whose business is hidden
> behind corporate firewalls so that they can make money with proprietary
> work, find it morally outrageous that other people don't give away all
> their work.
The main reason we use firewalls is to protect the privacy of user data. I
don't think people would be very amused if they find their bank account
numbers posted on the internet ;-)
--jochen
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 16:50 ` Jochen Friedrich
@ 2002-04-21 17:18 ` yodaiken
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: yodaiken @ 2002-04-21 17:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jochen Friedrich
Cc: yodaiken, Rik van Riel, Larry McVoy, Roman Zippel, Jeff Garzik,
Daniel Phillips, linux-kernel
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 06:50:39PM +0200, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > So you're telling me that what I've been doing over the
> > > last months really shouldn't have been possible ?
> >
> > What he is telling you is that people whose business is hidden
> > behind corporate firewalls so that they can make money with proprietary
> > work, find it morally outrageous that other people don't give away all
> > their work.
>
> The main reason we use firewalls is to protect the privacy of user data. I
> don't think people would be very amused if they find their bank account
> numbers posted on the internet ;-)
I don't care what information you keep private. I just find the
popular the "your work is free, but of course we are in a company" theory
of business to be amusing. If you work at a bank, the decision on whether or
not to purchase a bitkeeper license is a business decision that has nothing
to do with the ideology of free software - unless you are some new type of
bank that is in business to do good.
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Victor Yodaiken
Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company.
www.fsmlabs.com www.rtlinux.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 9:22 ` Jochen Friedrich
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2002-04-21 13:18 ` Rik van Riel
@ 2002-04-21 15:17 ` Jeff Garzik
3 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-21 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jochen Friedrich
Cc: Larry McVoy, Roman Zippel, Daniel Phillips, Linus Torvalds,
linux-kernel
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 11:22:10AM +0200, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> Hi Larry,
>
> > Huh? BK requires no more net access than you require when submitting
> > a regular patch. You need to be connected to move the bits.
>
> Wrong. Many corporate firewalls allow email and http (both via proxy) and
> reject any other traffic. CVS and BK are both unusable in this
> environment.
Wrong -- both BK and CVS can be proxied.
CVS takes a bit more effort. 'bk helptool url' gives you proxy info for BK.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 0:04 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-21 0:17 ` Larry McVoy
@ 2002-04-21 16:32 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 16:46 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22 12:06 ` Roman Zippel
1 sibling, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-21 16:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roman Zippel; +Cc: Daniel Phillips, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 02:04:07AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> > What was Daniel's action? Remove the text. Nothing else. Sure, he
> > suggested other options, but he did attempt to implement them? No.
> > He just implied that people need to step up and do this work for him.
>
> He made his intention very clear, you are interpreting something in his
> action, that simply isn't there.
How can one misinterpret the action of "<this> is my ideology.
this document offends me. I remove it."?
> > Daniel attempted to remove speech he disgreed with from wide
> > distribution -- on distro CDs, kernel.org mirrors, etc. I am hoping
> > it is plainly obvious that removing a doc from one of the mostly
> > widely distributed open source projects reduces the doc's distribution
> > dramatically. _That_ is a form of censorship, just like buying out
> > printing presses, to silence them, in the old days. It's still
> > around... just progressively harder to obtain.
>
> Censorship requires the means to enforce it and has Daniel this ability?
> Could we please stop these "censorship" and "ideology" arguments? In
> this context they are simply nonsense.
Ideology was the __sole__ reason for removing the document.
Since Linus uses BK, and the document is there in the first place
to make life easier, Daniel is therefore making life more difficult
because of ideology, and no other reason.
If you want to be really semantic, Daniel's patch was an attempt to
censor, not censorship itself. But when it's a GPL'd document that
I wrote, I'll treat them equally.
> kernel development with bk requires net access
No it doesn't
> when it's available over the net. On the other hand SubmittingPatches
> describes the lowest common denominator, which works with any SCM and
> doesn't favour any of them.
> Personally I don't care what tools people use, but I'm getting
> concerned, when a nonfree tool is advertised as tool of choice for
> kernel for development as if there would be no choice.
Linus, myself, and others _repeatedly_ say that BitKeeper is _not_
the sole means of submitting patches. Thus actively and repeatedly
disputing "as if there would be no choice."
This policy of supporting GNU patches has been in existence since
time began, and absolutely nothing has changed in that regard.
To imply otherwise is to spread Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
> bk has advantages
> for distributed development, but beside of this they are alternatives
> and we should rather encourage users to try them and to help with the
> development of them.
How many users here, besides me, have actually done serious patching of
the CVS source? The argument that kernel developers will help develop
an SCM is admirable, but unrealistic IMO. Otherwise, kernel hackers
would have written a BK alternative by now, instead of simply whining.
> But there isn't anything like that, so Joe Hacker
> has to think he should use bk as SCM to get his patch into the kernel,
> because Linus is using it.
If Linus and others repeatedly claim this is untrue, and repeatedly
prove this by taking GNU patches, your statement is utter fantasy.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 16:32 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-20 16:46 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 16:57 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-22 12:06 ` Roman Zippel
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-20 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik, Roman Zippel; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Sunday 21 April 2002 18:32, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 02:04:07AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Since Linus uses BK, and the document is there in the first place
> to make life easier, Daniel is therefore making life more difficult
> because of ideology, and no other reason.
Yup, that's me. No, I don't always check my conscience at the door. If
that were my habit I'd have spent the past three years comfortably
programming big, expensive machines under Windows.
N.B., not implying you're morally bankrupt, no suggestion of that at
all. Still, since you just dumps on all those who prefer to follow
their hearts, you deserve to be publically challenged.
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.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 16:46 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-21 16:57 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 17:11 ` Daniel Phillips
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-21 16:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Roman Zippel, linux-kernel
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 06:46:11PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Sunday 21 April 2002 18:32, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 02:04:07AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > Since Linus uses BK, and the document is there in the first place
> > to make life easier, Daniel is therefore making life more difficult
> > because of ideology, and no other reason.
>
> Yup, that's me. No, I don't always check my conscience at the door. If
> that were my habit I'd have spent the past three years comfortably
> programming big, expensive machines under Windows.
>
> N.B., not implying you're morally bankrupt, no suggestion of that at
> all. Still, since you just dumps on all those who prefer to follow
> their hearts, you deserve to be publically challenged.
Public challenges kick ass. As people here know, I love a good flamewar :)
I follow my heart quite often, so I've no doubt I will be on the other
side of the coin. I get dumped on by vendors for being staunchly GPL
when doing driver development. We all pick our issues. :)
> 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.
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.
My advice to you: ignore Documentation/BK-usage, it is apparently
causing you anguish :)
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 16:57 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-20 17:11 ` Daniel Phillips
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-20 17:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: Roman Zippel, linux-kernel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 16:32 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 16:46 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-22 12:06 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-22 16:39 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Roman Zippel @ 2002-04-22 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: Daniel Phillips, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
Hi,
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > He made his intention very clear, you are interpreting something in
his
> > action, that simply isn't there.
>
> How can one misinterpret the action of "<this> is my ideology.
> this document offends me. I remove it."?
If "ideology" means to state a different opinion, then I'm guilty too,
I'm an ideologist and proud of it. Please get your terminology straight
before you make such accusations.
> If you want to be really semantic, Daniel's patch was an attempt to
> censor, not censorship itself. But when it's a GPL'd document that
> I wrote, I'll treat them equally.
One doesn't "attempt to censor" by publicly announcing it. Get real,
this is getting ridiculous.
> > kernel development with bk requires net access
>
> No it doesn't
What you describe in the document does.
> > Personally I don't care what tools people use, but I'm getting
> > concerned, when a nonfree tool is advertised as tool of choice for
> > kernel for development as if there would be no choice.
>
> Linus, myself, and others _repeatedly_ say that BitKeeper is _not_
> the sole means of submitting patches. Thus actively and repeatedly
> disputing "as if there would be no choice."
I was talking about SCM systems. The current situations favours bk and
you currently doing your best to piss anyone off, who cares about free
software.
> Otherwise, kernel hackers
> would have written a BK alternative by now, instead of simply whining.
Nobody is whining here. I accept Linus' decision for bk and I understand
why. I'm not entirely happy about it, but there is currently not much I
can do about it and it's still better than using no SCM system at all.
> > But there isn't anything like that, so Joe Hacker
> > has to think he should use bk as SCM to get his patch into the kernel,
> > because Linus is using it.
>
> If Linus and others repeatedly claim this is untrue, and repeatedly
> prove this by taking GNU patches, your statement is utter fantasy.
Again, I was more talking about SCM systems here. I don't care, what
tools you are using, but we should avoid giving the impression, that
Joe Hacker should use bk, because Linus is using it.
You and Linus may only care about hacking for fun, but other people also
care about the freedom to hack. Recent developments in the US and Europe
should have made clear that this is necessary. Nobody wants to make Larry
the bad guy here, but is on the other hand a little respect really too
much to ask for, when people critize the usage of bk, that they not
automatically get branded as bunch of fanatics with some strange
"ideology"?
Could we at least add something like below as a compromise (it's only a
suggestion and not an attempt to brainwash or something like that). It's
not enough to assume that people know that they have a choice, we have to
tell them that and besides of some statements on the LKML, I can't find it
officially documented anywhere:
Unlike Linux itself bk is not free software, but it was choosen by Linus
and other developers because of it qualities as distributed source code
management system. Before you start using bk you should have carefully
read http://www.bitkeeper.com/Sales.Licensing.Free.html and decided for
yourself whether these conditions are acceptable. Alternatively the latest
kernel sources will also always be available at www.kernel.org. If you
require a source code management system, you might also consider one of
the freely available systems.
bye, Roman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-22 12:06 ` Roman Zippel
@ 2002-04-22 16:39 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-23 13:49 ` Roman Zippel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-22 16:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roman Zippel; +Cc: linux-kernel
(Linus removed from CC)
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 02:06:05PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> > > He made his intention very clear, you are interpreting something in
> his
> > > action, that simply isn't there.
> >
> > How can one misinterpret the action of "<this> is my ideology.
> > this document offends me. I remove it."?
>
> If "ideology" means to state a different opinion, then I'm guilty too,
> I'm an ideologist and proud of it. Please get your terminology straight
> before you make such accusations.
I have my terminology straight. Everyone have some amount of core
ideology, I imagine. I was illustrating cause and effect, with the
above statement.
Ideology is a good thing. If you believe in something, fight for it.
But... if you believe that all documents in the kernel source should
conform to a certain ideology, the WRONG way to go about fighting
that is to remove documents. Why is it wrong? You are trampling on
the rights of others. One RIGHT way to fight would be to write an
alternate SCM that people can switch to -- eliminate the need for BK.
I may disagree with Daniel's action, but his viewpoint is more than
fair, and is shared by others. My point with all this censorship /
free speech stuff is -- don't let your viewpoint cause others' rights
to be trampled.
> > If you want to be really semantic, Daniel's patch was an attempt to
> > censor, not censorship itself. But when it's a GPL'd document that
> > I wrote, I'll treat them equally.
>
> One doesn't "attempt to censor" by publicly announcing it. Get real,
> this is getting ridiculous.
Read up on censorship. It doesn't have to be private to be censorship.
In fact, it usually isn't.
Fact: GPL'd BK document contains speech Daniel doesn't like
Fact: Daniel tried to remove doc because he dislikes its contents
Interpret the facts however you wish.
> > > But there isn't anything like that, so Joe Hacker
> > > has to think he should use bk as SCM to get his patch into the kernel,
> > > because Linus is using it.
> >
> > If Linus and others repeatedly claim this is untrue, and repeatedly
> > prove this by taking GNU patches, your statement is utter fantasy.
>
> Again, I was more talking about SCM systems here. I don't care, what
> tools you are using, but we should avoid giving the impression, that
> Joe Hacker should use bk, because Linus is using it.
I agree. (shocked? :))
Nobody should feel forced or coerced into using BK, and we should
actively combat this notion.
I wonder if we can agree, as well, that no one should feel forced or
coerced into _not_ using BK, also. Do you agree?
Freedom of choice is also an important freedom. We, the BK fans, should
actively combat the notion of being forced to use BK. OTOH, the anti-BK
crowd should IMO actively combat the notion of being forced _not_ to use
BK. Daniel used the term "BitKeeper mafia" -- let's work together as a
community to ensure there is never an "anti-BitKeeper mafia" also...
> You and Linus may only care about hacking for fun, but other people also
> care about the freedom to hack. Recent developments in the US and Europe
> should have made clear that this is necessary. Nobody wants to make Larry
> the bad guy here, but is on the other hand a little respect really too
> much to ask for, when people critize the usage of bk, that they not
> automatically get branded as bunch of fanatics with some strange
> "ideology"?
I hold up Andrew Morton and Andi Kleen as two shining examples of people
who appear to disagree with BK, but are willing to patiently point out
problems. Andrew Morton's message in the middle of this thread was
wonderful, to-the-point, and rings true to me. I was very happy that he
posted it.
But to be honest, I _do_ feel that Daniel was being a fanatic.
That's an opinion, and I'm sure some people disagree.
Free speech is all about letting someone else that you _disagree_ with
air their opinion. Daniel's patch was not about that principle at all.
I will not cast aspersions on anyone else, since I only have Daniel's
actions to judge.
> Could we at least add something like below as a compromise (it's only a
> suggestion and not an attempt to brainwash or something like that). It's
> not enough to assume that people know that they have a choice, we have to
> tell them that and besides of some statements on the LKML, I can't find it
> officially documented anywhere:
I am perfectly fine with adding this paragraph to the BK doc, and
will save your email here with the intention of doing so. Your doc is
fair and I did not think for one second it was an attempt to brainwash.
Thank you,
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-22 16:39 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-23 13:49 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-23 14:51 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-23 15:05 ` Rik van Riel
0 siblings, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Roman Zippel @ 2002-04-23 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: linux-kernel
Hi,
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> I have my terminology straight. Everyone have some amount of core
> ideology, I imagine. I was illustrating cause and effect, with the
> above statement.
>
> Ideology is a good thing. If you believe in something, fight for it.
~$ dict ideology
2 definitions found
>From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.44
[gcide]:
[...]
3. A set or system of theories and beliefs held by an
individual or group, especially about sociopolitical goals
and methods to attain them; in common usage, ideology is
such a set of beliefs so strongly held by their adherents
as to cause them to ignore evidence against such beliefs,
and thus fall into error -- in this sense it is viewed as
a negative trait; contrasted to {pragmatism}, and distinct
from idealism.
[PJC]
[...]
What you're talking about are believes and idealism.
> Read up on censorship. It doesn't have to be private to be censorship.
> In fact, it usually isn't.
>
> Fact: GPL'd BK document contains speech Daniel doesn't like
> Fact: Daniel tried to remove doc because he dislikes its contents
>
> Interpret the facts however you wish.
dict censor
2 definitions found
[...]
censor
n : a person who is authorized to read publications or
correspondence or to watch theatrical performances and
suppress in whole or in part anything considered obscene
or politically unacceptable
v 1: forbid the public distribution of; as of movies or
newspapers [syn: {ban}]
2: subject to political, religious, or moral censorship; "This
magazine is censored by the government"
Daniel did clearly state that he wants the documents to be moved, not to
be banned completely.
I grew up in a country, where censorship was very real. I know how it
feels to learn only afterwards what really happened. Believe I'm very
sensitive when it comes to censorship, but Daniels action comes nowhere
close.
> Nobody should feel forced or coerced into using BK, and we should
> actively combat this notion.
>
> I wonder if we can agree, as well, that no one should feel forced or
> coerced into _not_ using BK, also. Do you agree?
I have no problem with that and nobody is demanding that.
> But to be honest, I _do_ feel that Daniel was being a fanatic.
> That's an opinion, and I'm sure some people disagree.
Daniel got lost in defending mutiple position, what is already difficult
enough in a calm discussion. On the other hand you and Larry were pushing
him into a specific corner with hardly let him a chance to get out of it
(especially Larry has a talent for that, as I know from my own
experience). Daniel has some very important points, but his argumentation
was just lousy.
> Free speech is all about letting someone else that you _disagree_ with
> air their opinion. Daniel's patch was not about that principle at all.
Free speech is really not at danger here. The problem is something
completely different. Linux is still a free software project and the
question is how seriously do we take this? Do we want to promote free
software or nonfree software? I assume that most people here enjoy working
on Linux and the free exchange of ideas and the GPL ensures that it stays
that way. So how does an endorsement for nonfree software fit in here? You
promote a software, which you can't simply modify to your needs and where
any improvement you make, is owned by someone else.
What Larry does with the result of his work is alone his decision, what
tools you use is also your decision, but what position should we take as a
Linux community? What is more important, freedom or convenience?
bye, Roman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-23 13:49 ` Roman Zippel
@ 2002-04-23 14:51 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-22 15:29 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-23 15:13 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-23 15:05 ` Rik van Riel
1 sibling, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2002-04-23 14:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roman Zippel; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 03:49:50PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Free speech is really not at danger here. The problem is something
> completely different. Linux is still a free software project and the
> question is how seriously do we take this?
You might stop and ask yourself how the people who work on this free
software project pay the bills. I remember a recent converation with
Daniel where I said "if you work there, your work won't be GPLed" and
he replied "No problem". It's interesting how quickly he lost his GPL
rules when he wanted a job. Are you any different? Is anyone any
different? Obviously, everyone needs to eat. So how many people are
doing development on something which is not GPLed in order to pay the
bills so they can eat and still contribute to something which is GPLed?
Most of the people here, right?
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-23 14:51 ` Larry McVoy
@ 2002-04-22 15:29 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-23 17:00 ` Rik van Riel
2002-04-23 15:13 ` Roman Zippel
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-22 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Larry McVoy, Roman Zippel; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Tuesday 23 April 2002 16:51, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 03:49:50PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > Free speech is really not at danger here. The problem is something
> > completely different. Linux is still a free software project and the
> > question is how seriously do we take this?
>
> You might stop and ask yourself how the people who work on this free
> software project pay the bills. I remember a recent converation with
> Daniel where I said "if you work there, your work won't be GPLed" and
> he replied "No problem". It's interesting how quickly he lost his GPL
> rules when he wanted a job.
Larry, it's a low blow and I resent it. Retraction please.
Since you are smug about that, please inquire what my actual position is
with regard to upholding the GPL. You know who to ask.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-22 15:29 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-23 17:00 ` Rik van Riel
2002-04-23 18:12 ` Roman Zippel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Rik van Riel @ 2002-04-23 17:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Roman Zippel, Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 April 2002 16:51, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > You might stop and ask yourself how the people who work on this free
> > software project pay the bills. I remember a recent converation with
> > Daniel where I said "if you work there, your work won't be GPLed" and
> > he replied "No problem". It's interesting how quickly he lost his GPL
> > rules when he wanted a job.
>
> Larry, it's a low blow and I resent it. Retraction please.
Come on, you've already shown in this thread that you retract
your own statements every time the thread takes a turn.
I guess I'll state for the record that I don't object to idealists,
it's armchair idealists I resent.
The kind of people who want to impose a view of the world on
others that they'd never impose on themselves, the kind of
people who preach free software but work for a distro that
includes non-free software, the kind of people who want to
retroactively change their statements whenever they are
inconvenienced by them.
You know who you are.
regards,
Rik
--
http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2002/
"You're one of those condescending OLS attendants"
"Here's a nickle kid. Go buy yourself a real t-shirt"
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-23 17:00 ` Rik van Riel
@ 2002-04-23 18:12 ` Roman Zippel
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Roman Zippel @ 2002-04-23 18:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rik van Riel; +Cc: Daniel Phillips, Larry McVoy, Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
Hi,
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
> I guess I'll state for the record that I don't object to idealists,
> it's armchair idealists I resent.
>
> The kind of people who want to impose a view of the world on
> others that they'd never impose on themselves, the kind of
> people who preach free software but work for a distro that
> includes non-free software,
Are you trying to start some sort of PC-contest "Who is the real
idealists?" here?
bye, Roman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-23 14:51 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-22 15:29 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-23 15:13 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-23 15:17 ` Larry McVoy
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Roman Zippel @ 2002-04-23 15:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
Hi,
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > Free speech is really not at danger here. The problem is something
> > completely different. Linux is still a free software project and the
> > question is how seriously do we take this?
>
> You might stop and ask yourself how the people who work on this free
> software project pay the bills.
That's a decision everyone has to do for himself. Nobody blames you for
working on nonfree software, but everyone working on Linux should be aware
of what it stands for.
bye, Roman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-23 15:13 ` Roman Zippel
@ 2002-04-23 15:17 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-23 15:35 ` Roman Zippel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2002-04-23 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roman Zippel; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 05:13:25PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > > Free speech is really not at danger here. The problem is something
> > > completely different. Linux is still a free software project and the
> > > question is how seriously do we take this?
> >
> > You might stop and ask yourself how the people who work on this free
> > software project pay the bills.
>
> That's a decision everyone has to do for himself. Nobody blames you for
> working on nonfree software, but everyone working on Linux should be aware
> of what it stands for.
You're missing the point. Most of the people here do exactly what I do,
they work on something else in order to be able to contribute to Linux.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-23 15:17 ` Larry McVoy
@ 2002-04-23 15:35 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-23 15:37 ` Larry McVoy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Roman Zippel @ 2002-04-23 15:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
Hi,
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > That's a decision everyone has to do for himself. Nobody blames you for
> > working on nonfree software, but everyone working on Linux should be aware
> > of what it stands for.
>
> You're missing the point. Most of the people here do exactly what I do,
> they work on something else in order to be able to contribute to Linux.
Then you should ask yourself, why you are doing it.
bye, Roman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-23 15:35 ` Roman Zippel
@ 2002-04-23 15:37 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-23 16:04 ` Roman Zippel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2002-04-23 15:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roman Zippel; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 05:35:40PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > > That's a decision everyone has to do for himself. Nobody blames you for
> > > working on nonfree software, but everyone working on Linux should be aware
> > > of what it stands for.
> >
> > You're missing the point. Most of the people here do exactly what I do,
> > they work on something else in order to be able to contribute to Linux.
>
> Then you should ask yourself, why you are doing it.
Just out of curiousity, how do you make a living Roman?
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-23 15:37 ` Larry McVoy
@ 2002-04-23 16:04 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-23 17:01 ` Rik van Riel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Roman Zippel @ 2002-04-23 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
Hi,
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > You're missing the point. Most of the people here do exactly what I do,
> > > they work on something else in order to be able to contribute to Linux.
> >
> > Then you should ask yourself, why you are doing it.
>
> Just out of curiousity, how do you make a living Roman?
How is that important? Am I to be judged now?
bye, Roman
PS: If you would be just curious, you could have also asked privately and
then I would have told you.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-23 16:04 ` Roman Zippel
@ 2002-04-23 17:01 ` Rik van Riel
2002-04-23 17:06 ` Roman Zippel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Rik van Riel @ 2002-04-23 17:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roman Zippel; +Cc: Larry McVoy, Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Roman Zippel wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> > > > You're missing the point. Most of the people here do exactly what I do,
> > > > they work on something else in order to be able to contribute to Linux.
> > >
> > > Then you should ask yourself, why you are doing it.
> >
> > Just out of curiousity, how do you make a living Roman?
>
> How is that important? Am I to be judged now?
If you're not willing to be judged according to the standards
you try to impose on Larry, how serious do you expect us to
take you ?
regards,
Rik
--
http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2002/
"You're one of those condescending OLS attendants"
"Here's a nickle kid. Go buy yourself a real t-shirt"
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-23 13:49 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-23 14:51 ` Larry McVoy
@ 2002-04-23 15:05 ` Rik van Riel
2002-04-23 15:27 ` Roman Zippel
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Rik van Riel @ 2002-04-23 15:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Roman Zippel; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Free speech is really not at danger here. The problem is something
> completely different. Linux is still a free software project and the
> question is how seriously do we take this?
IMHO Linux would stop being a free software project the moment
we start telling Linus what he can and can't distribute in his
copy of the kernel.
Freedom includes the freedom for people to promote an opinion
that isn't the same as yours.
regards,
Rik
--
http://www.linuxsymposium.org/2002/
"You're one of those condescending OLS attendants"
"Here's a nickle kid. Go buy yourself a real t-shirt"
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-23 15:05 ` Rik van Riel
@ 2002-04-23 15:27 ` Roman Zippel
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Roman Zippel @ 2002-04-23 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rik van Riel; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
Hi,
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Free speech is really not at danger here. The problem is something
> > completely different. Linux is still a free software project and the
> > question is how seriously do we take this?
>
> IMHO Linux would stop being a free software project the moment
> we start telling Linus what he can and can't distribute in his
> copy of the kernel.
We are telling him that all the time, it's another question whether he
listens to us and so far he was very good at listening to us. If Linus
would stop doing this, he would risk a fork. If that happened, the project
would continue, although weakened.
> Freedom includes the freedom for people to promote an opinion
> that isn't the same as yours.
Do you have to promote the opinion of other people? What happens if you
promote an opinion, which conflicts with your action?
bye, Roman
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 21:03 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 21:36 ` Skip Ford
2002-04-21 0:04 ` Roman Zippel
@ 2002-04-21 2:30 ` Ian Molton
2002-04-21 15:33 ` Jeff Garzik
2 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Ian Molton @ 2002-04-21 2:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: zippel, phillips, torvalds, linux-kernel
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?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 2:30 ` Ian Molton
@ 2002-04-21 15:33 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 15:46 ` Daniel Phillips
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-21 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Molton; +Cc: zippel, phillips, torvalds, linux-kernel
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.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 15:33 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-20 15:46 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 15:59 ` Jeff Garzik
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-20 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik, Ian Molton; +Cc: zippel, linux-kernel
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?
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 15:46 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-21 15:59 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 23:36 ` Ian Molton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-21 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Ian Molton, zippel, linux-kernel
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 15:59 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-21 23:36 ` Ian Molton
2002-04-26 21:58 ` Rik van Riel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Ian Molton @ 2002-04-21 23:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: phillips, zippel, linux-kernel
Jeff Garzik Awoke this dragon, who will now respond:
> If Linus had applied your patch, there would be a lag time during which
> the doc would have no home at all.
He merely provided the patch. he didnt try to force it through in a hurry,
which left plenty of time for relocation in the meantime.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 15:52 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 16:16 ` Roman Zippel
@ 2002-04-20 16:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-19 16:45 ` Daniel Phillips
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2002-04-20 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: Daniel Phillips, linux-kernel
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Take your closed mind elsewhere. I'm pretty sure Linus has more sense
> than to apply this patch.
Absolutely.
Like it or not, I personally use BK. I don't use CVS, and I don't use
subversion.
If anybody wants to maintain his own kernel, feel free to remove the
documentation on how to interact with _me_. In such a kernel, those docs
would obviously be meaningless.
In fact, Daniel, if you had bothered to just even grep for CVS, you would
have noticed that we've had CVS information for some other subprojects
too, because _they_ happen to use CVS. Would you argue for removal of the
CVS information in Documentation/filesystems/jfs.txt file?
And if not, then you're a hypocritical bastard with a religious agenda.
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 16:37 ` Linus Torvalds
@ 2002-04-19 16:45 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 16:54 ` Alexander Viro
2002-04-21 2:36 ` Ian Molton
0 siblings, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-19 16:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds, Jeff Garzik; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:37, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > Take your closed mind elsewhere. I'm pretty sure Linus has more sense
> > than to apply this patch.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> Like it or not, I personally use BK. I don't use CVS, and I don't use
> subversion.
>
> If anybody wants to maintain his own kernel, feel free to remove the
> documentation on how to interact with _me_. In such a kernel, those docs
> would obviously be meaningless.
>
> In fact, Daniel, if you had bothered to just even grep for CVS, you would
> have noticed that we've had CVS information for some other subprojects
> too, because _they_ happen to use CVS. Would you argue for removal of the
> CVS information in Documentation/filesystems/jfs.txt file?
>
> And if not, then you're a hypocritical bastard with a religious agenda.
Err, and if I to argue for it then I'm not? That's easy I argue for it.
Do you think the jfs team will object?
Anyway, that was not serious, I will not argue for the removal of
information on how to use CVS, and gpl'd tool, from the tree. Even though
I think the tree would be better off without it. This is not an issue.
A steady slide toward proprietary tools and behind-the-scenes development
in cathedral-style is an issue. This is not the Linux I knew, or thought
I knew, it is more like FreeBSD.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 16:45 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-20 16:54 ` Alexander Viro
2002-04-21 2:36 ` Ian Molton
1 sibling, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Alexander Viro @ 2002-04-20 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > And if not, then you're a hypocritical bastard with a religious agenda.
>
> Err, and if I to argue for it then I'm not? That's easy I argue for it.
In that case you are a wanker with religious agenda. Tomahto, tomato...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 16:45 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 16:54 ` Alexander Viro
@ 2002-04-21 2:36 ` Ian Molton
1 sibling, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Ian Molton @ 2002-04-21 2:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: torvalds, garzik, linux-kernel
Daniel Phillips Awoke this dragon, who will now respond:
> A steady slide toward proprietary tools and behind-the-scenes development
> in cathedral-style is an issue.
Whilst Im not sure I agree that bitkeeper is going to push things 'behind
the scenes' (its a source management tool, not the source itself), I do
think the basic point being made here has some merit. Think about it...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 15:12 Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 15:52 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-20 15:54 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 16:29 ` Nils Philippsen
2002-04-21 2:38 ` Ian Molton
2002-04-20 16:13 ` Anton Altaparmakov
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-20 15:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 05:12:33PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Please do not misinterpret my position: I count Larry as something more than
> a personal acquaintance. I strongly support his efforts to build a business
> for himself out of his Bitkeeper creation. I even like Jeff Garzik's
> documentation, the subject of this patch. I do not support the infusion of
It's also really, really, low class to not even CC me in your attempt
to remove the documentation I wrote from the kernel tree, and placed
into the kernel tree at Linus's request.
Rot in hell, closed mind.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 15:54 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-20 16:29 ` Nils Philippsen
2002-04-20 16:56 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 2:38 ` Ian Molton
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Nils Philippsen @ 2002-04-20 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: linux-kernel
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1148 bytes --]
On Sat, 2002-04-20 at 17:54, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 05:12:33PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > Please do not misinterpret my position: I count Larry as something more than
> > a personal acquaintance. I strongly support his efforts to build a business
> > for himself out of his Bitkeeper creation. I even like Jeff Garzik's
> > documentation, the subject of this patch. I do not support the infusion of
>
> It's also really, really, low class to not even CC me in your attempt
> to remove the documentation I wrote from the kernel tree, and placed
> into the kernel tree at Linus's request.
>
> Rot in hell, closed mind.
You seriously have to improve your manners. Dubbing someone low class
while using such phrases is pretty double standards. Is it really so
difficult to calm down before replying? But I guess I'm just restricting
your freedom of speech.
Nils
--
Nils Philippsen / Berliner Straße 39 / D-71229 Leonberg //
+49.7152.209647
nils@wombat.dialup.fht-esslingen.de / nils@redhat.de /
nils@fht-esslingen.de
Ever noticed that common sense isn't really all that common?
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 16:29 ` Nils Philippsen
@ 2002-04-20 16:56 ` Jeff Garzik
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-20 16:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nils Philippsen; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 06:29:11PM +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-04-20 at 17:54, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 05:12:33PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > Please do not misinterpret my position: I count Larry as something more than
> > > a personal acquaintance. I strongly support his efforts to build a business
> > > for himself out of his Bitkeeper creation. I even like Jeff Garzik's
> > > documentation, the subject of this patch. I do not support the infusion of
> >
> > It's also really, really, low class to not even CC me in your attempt
> > to remove the documentation I wrote from the kernel tree, and placed
> > into the kernel tree at Linus's request.
> >
> > Rot in hell, closed mind.
>
> You seriously have to improve your manners. Dubbing someone low class
> while using such phrases is pretty double standards. Is it really so
> difficult to calm down before replying? But I guess I'm just restricting
> your freedom of speech.
I never claimed I was not low class[1] ;-) And no, you're not
restricting free speech at all... Posts like yours are a celebration of
free speech.
Jeff
[1] I often joke with my friends, "I've got plenty of class... all of it
low." Usually after telling a tasteless joke :)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 15:54 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 16:29 ` Nils Philippsen
@ 2002-04-21 2:38 ` Ian Molton
1 sibling, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Ian Molton @ 2002-04-21 2:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: phillips, torvalds, linux-kernel
Jeff Garzik Awoke this dragon, who will now respond:
> It's also really, really, low class to not even CC me in your attempt
> to remove the documentation I wrote from the kernel tree
> Rot in hell, closed mind.
You know, I blasted Andre H for using words that were nicer than that. And
to think you are working where he left off. worrying.
And its /well known/ that you read here. I think not CCing is not a heinous
offense in this case.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 15:12 Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 15:52 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 15:54 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-20 16:13 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-04-19 16:21 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 17:41 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-20 17:53 ` Eric W. Biederman
4 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Anton Altaparmakov @ 2002-04-20 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
Daniel,
This is not documentation for bitkeeper but how to use bitkeeper
effectively for kernel development. It happens to be DAMN USEFULL
documentation at that for anyone wanting to use bitkeeper for kernel
development so IMO it fully belongs in the kernel. Just like the
SubmittingPatches document does, too. Or are you going to remove that as well?
If you don't want to use bitkeeper you don't need to read this
documentation. Just ignore it and stick with what is SubmittingPatches
document.
What's your problem?
Best regards,
Anton
At 16:12 19/04/02, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>Hi Linus,
>
>I have up to this point been open to the use of Bitkeeper as a development
>aid for Linux, and, again up to this point, have intended to make use of
>Bitkeeper myself, taking a pragmatic attitude towards the concept of using
>the best tool for the job. However, now I see that Bitkeeper documentation
>has quietly been inserted ino the Linux Documentation directory, and that
>without any apparent discussion on lkml. I fear that this demonstrates that
>those who have called the use of Bitkeeper a slippery slope do have a point
>after all.
>
>I respectfully request that you consider applying the attached patch, which
>reverses these proprietary additions to the Documentation directory. Perhaps
>a better place for this documentation would be on kernel.org if Peter Anvin
>agrees, or the submitter's own site if he does not. Or perhaps bitkeeper.com
>would be willing to host these files.
>
>Please do not misinterpret my position: I count Larry as something more than
>a personal acquaintance. I strongly support his efforts to build a business
>for himself out of his Bitkeeper creation. I even like Jeff Garzik's
>documentation, the subject of this patch. I do not support the infusion of
>documentation for proprietary software products into the Linux tree. The
>message is that we have gone beyond optional usage of Bitkeeper here, and it
>is now an absolute requirement, or it is on the way there.
>
>I hope that this proposed patch will receive more discussion than the
>original additions to Documentation did.
>
>Thankyou,
>
>Daniel
--
"I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cantab.net> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS Maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.openprojects.net
WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 16:13 ` Anton Altaparmakov
@ 2002-04-19 16:21 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 16:51 ` Anton Altaparmakov
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-19 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anton Altaparmakov; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:13, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> This is not documentation for bitkeeper but how to use bitkeeper
> effectively for kernel development. It happens to be DAMN USEFULL
> documentation at that for anyone wanting to use bitkeeper for kernel
> development so IMO it fully belongs in the kernel. Just like the
> SubmittingPatches document does, too. Or are you going to remove that as well?
By that logic, we should also include the lkml FAQ in the kernel tree. Should
we?
> If you don't want to use bitkeeper you don't need to read this
> documentation. Just ignore it and stick with what is SubmittingPatches
> document.
>
> What's your problem?
I am worried that a creeping takeover of the Linux hitherto-successful
development process is in progress, that concensus on this topic has not been
achieved, and that there is a split coming. That would not be good.
As always, what I do is in the interest of Linux and freedom. That interest
is not served by driving a wedge firmly between two groups of Linux developers.
I hope you understand that I am a *moderate* with respect to this issue.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 16:21 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-20 16:51 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-04-19 17:05 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 17:58 ` Eric W. Biederman
2002-04-20 18:13 ` Rik van Riel
2002-04-21 16:27 ` Richard Gooch
2 siblings, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Anton Altaparmakov @ 2002-04-20 16:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
At 17:21 19/04/02, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:13, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > Daniel,
> >
> > This is not documentation for bitkeeper but how to use bitkeeper
> > effectively for kernel development. It happens to be DAMN USEFULL
> > documentation at that for anyone wanting to use bitkeeper for kernel
> > development so IMO it fully belongs in the kernel. Just like the
> > SubmittingPatches document does, too. Or are you going to remove that
> as well?
>
>By that logic, we should also include the lkml FAQ in the kernel tree. Should
>we?
The lkml FAQ is aimed at users, not developers. The bitkeeper and the
SubmittingPatches document are aimed at developers. I see a fundamental
difference here...
> > If you don't want to use bitkeeper you don't need to read this
> > documentation. Just ignore it and stick with what is SubmittingPatches
> > document.
> >
> > What's your problem?
>
>I am worried that a creeping takeover of the Linux hitherto-successful
>development process is in progress, that concensus on this topic has not been
>achieved, and that there is a split coming. That would not be good.
>
>As always, what I do is in the interest of Linux and freedom. That interest
>is not served by driving a wedge firmly between two groups of Linux
>developers.
>I hope you understand that I am a *moderate* with respect to this issue.
The fact that some developers use bitkeeper has no effect on other
developers. Well ok, it means that the bk using developers can work faster
but that is not at issue here...
I don't see why there should be any kind of split or anything like that.
Everything continues as before. It's just that some developers now have a
much easier life...
Anton
--
"I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cantab.net> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS Maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.openprojects.net
WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 16:51 ` Anton Altaparmakov
@ 2002-04-19 17:05 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 17:09 ` Linus Torvalds
` (2 more replies)
2002-04-20 17:58 ` Eric W. Biederman
1 sibling, 3 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-19 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anton Altaparmakov; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:51, you wrote:
> The fact that some developers use bitkeeper has no effect on other
> developers.
On the contrary, I think it has divided the kernel developers firmly into
two classes: the "ins" and the "outs".
> Well ok, it means that the bk using developers can work faster
> but that is not at issue here...
Oh I don't disagree at all. Bitkeeper is a big improvement over what
existed before. But it is proprietary. Which other tool in the tool chain
is proprietary?
Heck, it's not even that proprietary. As far as I know I can still download
the source. But... looking at those files sitting in the Documentation
directory, it looks to me like a big old Marlbourough[TM] ad.
> I don't see why there should be any kind of split or anything like that.
> Everything continues as before. It's just that some developers now have a
> much easier life...
And some have a more difficult one. So it goes.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 17:05 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-20 17:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-19 17:32 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 17:15 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 17:19 ` Dave Jones
2 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2002-04-20 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> And some have a more difficult one. So it goes.
How?
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 17:09 ` Linus Torvalds
@ 2002-04-19 17:32 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 17:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-20 17:51 ` Larry McVoy
0 siblings, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-19 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Saturday 20 April 2002 19:09, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >
> > And some have a more difficult one. So it goes.
>
> How?
Those who now chose to carry out their development using the patch+email
method, and prefer to submit everything for discussion on lkml before it
gets included are now largely out of the loop. Things just seem to *appear*
in the tree now, without much fanfare. That's my impression.
Rather than Linux development becoming more open, as I'd hoped with the
advent of Bitkeeper, it seems to be turning more in the direction of
becoming a closed club. This may be fun if you're a member of the club.
Ah well, I'm a 'sorta' club member, why should I complain? All the same,
I feel that something we all seemed to be headed towards with unity of
purpose is somehow becoming more elusive. Being attacked personally for
having this feeling does not help.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 17:32 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-20 17:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-19 21:02 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 17:51 ` Larry McVoy
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Linus Torvalds @ 2002-04-20 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > And some have a more difficult one. So it goes.
> >
> > How?
>
> Those who now chose to carry out their development using the patch+email
> method, and prefer to submit everything for discussion on lkml before it
> gets included are now largely out of the loop. Things just seem to *appear*
> in the tree now, without much fanfare. That's my impression.
I don't buy that - I'm not getting changes from any new magical BK "men in
black". The patches are the same kind they always were, the last few
entries in my changelog are now the x86-64 merge (which was half a meg,
and yes it wasn't posted on linux-kernel, but no, it never was before BK
either), and before that the extensively discussed SSE register content
leak patch.
HOWEVER, the fact that you _feel_ like that is clearly a fact.
Any suggestions on how to make the process _appear_ less intimidating?
Note that one thing that I had hoped BK would do for me, but that hasn't
happened because I'm a lazy bastard and I'm bad at doing automated scripts
is to do dialy snapshots as patches (getting rid of the "-pre" kernels,
since they don't actually add any information except act as update
points), and also send out a changelog daily to the kernel mailing list.
That is something that is one of the big _points_ to using source control,
yet because I don't need it personally I've never gotten around to writing
those scripts.
That would actually make the development process MORE open than it was
before BK, and might make even non-BK people appreciate BK more simply
because there is a real point to it.
Comments? Anybody want to hack up a script to do this?
Linus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 17:51 ` Linus Torvalds
@ 2002-04-19 21:02 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 21:07 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 22:00 ` Stevie O
0 siblings, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-19 21:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Torvalds; +Cc: Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Saturday 20 April 2002 19:51, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Any suggestions on how to make the process _appear_ less intimidating?
I'm thinking about it. It's still the best project on the planet, but even
so, could it be better?
> Note that one thing that I had hoped BK would do for me, but that hasn't
> happened because I'm a lazy bastard and I'm bad at doing automated scripts
> is to do dialy snapshots as patches (getting rid of the "-pre" kernels,
> since they don't actually add any information except act as update
> points), and also send out a changelog daily to the kernel mailing list.
Eeek. That sounds like a lot of work. Oh I see, this is 100% automated.
> That would actually make the development process MORE open than it was
> before BK, and might make even non-BK people appreciate BK more simply
> because there is a real point to it.
Well, it would be more like working in a fishbowl anyway. The part that's
missing is the discussion. Just looking at the recent traffic... there's
Martin Dalecki's IDE patch, gosh, look at all the fun. It's a non-BK
patch, let's see if there's a pattern. Hmm, the next bushy one is "[PATCH]
zerocopy NFS updated", descending from a traditional patch set. The next
one, "[PATCH] IDE TCQ #4" is also a traditional patch. Hmm, no bitkeeper
patches showing up yet, I don't think I need to go on.
There is a clear inverse relationship between the bk-ness of a patch and
the extent to which it's discussed on lkml. I don't know what to read into
that, but it does seem to lend credence to the idea that the bitkeeper
style of working is not compatible with the idea of community discussion.
Perhaps there are really two kinds of patches, those that are mainly
functional and don't need to be discussed, for which Bitkeeper is an
entirely appropriate medium, and patches-needing-discussion, for which
the Bitkeeper channel is entirely inappropriate. Most of the volume is in
the former, and hence, that is where most of the time savings are. The
corollary of that is, we will not lose a lot of productivity by *not*
using Bitkeeper for the kind of patch that could or should be discussed.
> Comments? Anybody want to hack up a script to do this?
Well, that's a nice thought, but it's not the crux of the problem.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 21:02 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-20 21:07 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-19 22:01 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 1:38 ` Oliver Xymoron
2002-04-20 22:00 ` Stevie O
1 sibling, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-20 21:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:02:04PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Martin Dalecki's IDE patch, gosh, look at all the fun. It's a non-BK
> patch, let's see if there's a pattern. Hmm, the next bushy one is "[PATCH]
> zerocopy NFS updated", descending from a traditional patch set. The next
> one, "[PATCH] IDE TCQ #4" is also a traditional patch. Hmm, no bitkeeper
> patches showing up yet, I don't think I need to go on.
>
> There is a clear inverse relationship between the bk-ness of a patch and
> the extent to which it's discussed on lkml. I don't know what to read into
> that, but it does seem to lend credence to the idea that the bitkeeper
> style of working is not compatible with the idea of community discussion.
Concrete examples, please?
Which patches are the stealth patches?
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 21:07 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-19 22:01 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 22:20 ` Jeff Garzik
` (3 more replies)
2002-04-21 1:38 ` Oliver Xymoron
1 sibling, 4 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-19 22:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Saturday 20 April 2002 23:07, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:02:04PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > Martin Dalecki's IDE patch, gosh, look at all the fun. It's a non-BK
> > patch, let's see if there's a pattern. Hmm, the next bushy one is "[PATCH]
> > zerocopy NFS updated", descending from a traditional patch set. The next
> > one, "[PATCH] IDE TCQ #4" is also a traditional patch. Hmm, no bitkeeper
> > patches showing up yet, I don't think I need to go on.
> >
> > There is a clear inverse relationship between the bk-ness of a patch and
> > the extent to which it's discussed on lkml. I don't know what to read into
> > that, but it does seem to lend credence to the idea that the bitkeeper
> > style of working is not compatible with the idea of community discussion.
>
> Concrete examples, please?
>
> Which patches are the stealth patches?
Let me turn that around. Which bitkeeper patches have been posted to lkml and
generated significant amounts of discussion on lkml in the last week? Versus
how many lines of bitkeeper patches applied to Linus's tree?
I went through the 1,000 or so most recent postings on lkml, looking for patches
that generated discussion. Here's what I found:
BK patches generating discussion:
[PATCH] for_each_zone / for_each_pgdat
[BK PATCH] USB device support for 2.5.8
[BKPATCH 2.4] meye driver: fix request_irq bug
Non BK patches generating discussion:
[CFT][PATCH] (1/5) sane procfs/dcache interaction
[PATCH] Documenation/vm/numa
[PATCH] fix ips driver compile problems
[PATCH] IDE TCQ #4
[PATCH] migration thread fix
[PATCH] Wrong IRQ for USB on Sony Vaio (dmi_scan.c, pci-irq.c)
[PATCH] x86 boot enhancements, boot bean counting 8/11
[PATCH][2.5-dj] P4 thermal LVT (damage control)
[PATCHSET] Linux 2.4.19-pre7-jam1
[RFC] 2.5.8 sort kernel tables
page_alloc.c comments patch
[PATCH] Re: SSE related security hole
Both BK and non-BK:
[PATCH] i386 arch subdivision into machine types for 2.5.8
The next question you might ask is: are there more BK patches or
more Non-BK, in total, on and off lkml? I don't have statistics at
hand but I'm willing to bet that there are more BK patches, because
that is how the bulk of the grunt tree maintainance is getting
done these days.
My conclusion: though there are more BK patches being applied to Linus's
tree than non-BK, they are generating less discussion on lkml than non-BK
patches do. Or to put it bluntly: BK patches are not being discussed.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 22:01 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-20 22:20 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-19 22:34 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 22:30 ` Stelian Pop
` (2 subsequent siblings)
3 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-20 22:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 12:01:35AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Let me turn that around. Which bitkeeper patches have been posted to lkml and
> generated significant amounts of discussion on lkml in the last week? Versus
> how many lines of bitkeeper patches applied to Linus's tree?
Prior to BK, many people still emailed patches privately to Linus:
me, DaveM, Alan, Al, GregKH, ... You might consider private email
stealth, but usually the changes are either (a) obvious or (b)
previously discussed. With BK, the situation is the same.
So your argument is red herring -- which changes are _newly stealthed_
under BK? Do you have even ONE objectionable example?
BK only changes the medium of transmission of patches to Linus,
and gives us _more_ information about submittors than pre-BK.
> The next question you might ask is: are there more BK patches or
> more Non-BK, in total, on and off lkml? I don't have statistics at
> hand but I'm willing to bet that there are more BK patches, because
> that is how the bulk of the grunt tree maintainance is getting
> done these days.
> My conclusion: though there are more BK patches being applied to Linus's
> tree than non-BK,
So... your conclusion is based on a guess which is based on a guess.
Even if your conclusion is correct (it might be), how do you use
that to support the argument that, less discussion occurs due to BK?
As I mentioned, most merging with Linus occured in private anyway.
If you want to argue against that, go ahead. But don't try to blame
BitKeeper for it.
If there are _specific solutions_ that can be implemented to equalize
things with BK versus non-BK developers, please, chime in. I think the
daily snapshot idea is a good one. Deleting a document, and nothing
else, accomplishes no forward progress (except maybe spawning this
discussion on the evils of BK).
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 22:20 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-19 22:34 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 22:54 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 1:41 ` Rob Landley
0 siblings, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-19 22:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Sunday 21 April 2002 00:20, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 12:01:35AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > Let me turn that around. Which bitkeeper patches have been posted to lkml and
> > generated significant amounts of discussion on lkml in the last week? Versus
> > how many lines of bitkeeper patches applied to Linus's tree?
>
> Prior to BK, many people still emailed patches privately to Linus:
> me, DaveM, Alan, Al, GregKH, ... You might consider private email
> stealth, but usually the changes are either (a) obvious or (b)
> previously discussed. With BK, the situation is the same.
>
> So your argument is red herring -- which changes are _newly stealthed_
> under BK? Do you have even ONE objectionable example?
Of course I do: the patch to add the Bk files to Documentation. I will not
call that objectionable - I object to it, but that is not the same thing. I
will call it 'not discussed' when it should have been.
> BK only changes the medium of transmission of patches to Linus,
> and gives us _more_ information about submittors than pre-BK.
I'm not arguing that BK is not a good way to do the grunt maintainance work.
I think it is, and that's great. Heck, I'm not arguing against Bitkeeper *at
all*. I'm arguing against building the bitkeeper documentation into the
kernel tree, giving the impression that Bitkeeper is *required* for
submitting patches.
> > The next question you might ask is: are there more BK patches or
> > more Non-BK, in total, on and off lkml? I don't have statistics at
> > hand but I'm willing to bet that there are more BK patches, because
> > that is how the bulk of the grunt tree maintainance is getting
> > done these days.
>
> > My conclusion: though there are more BK patches being applied to Linus's
> > tree than non-BK,
>
> So... your conclusion is based on a guess which is based on a guess.
Check it if you think I'm wrong.
> Even if your conclusion is correct (it might be), how do you use
> that to support the argument that, less discussion occurs due to BK?
We haven't established that, we do see a strong correlation. But think.
It's obvious anyway, why discuss anything in public when you don't have
to? Just push it straight to Linus's tree, why bother with formalities?
It's so easy.
> As I mentioned, most merging with Linus occured in private anyway.
> If you want to argue against that, go ahead. But don't try to blame
> BitKeeper for it.
I sense that the discussion of patches on lkml is in decline and I do
blame Bitkeeper. Think I'm being paranoid? Prove me wrong.
> If there are _specific solutions_ that can be implemented to equalize
> things with BK versus non-BK developers, please, chime in. I think the
> daily snapshot idea is a good one.
I think so too, having heard more about the idea.
> Deleting a document, and nothing
> else, accomplishes no forward progress (except maybe spawning this
> discussion on the evils of BK).
Larry already agreed to it, and to provide a new home for it. Linus
said 'don't be silly', but that was a long way back. So that's where
it stands.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 22:34 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-20 22:54 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 1:41 ` Rob Landley
1 sibling, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-20 22:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 12:34:19AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Sunday 21 April 2002 00:20, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 12:01:35AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > Let me turn that around. Which bitkeeper patches have been posted to lkml and
> > > generated significant amounts of discussion on lkml in the last week? Versus
> > > how many lines of bitkeeper patches applied to Linus's tree?
> >
> > Prior to BK, many people still emailed patches privately to Linus:
> > me, DaveM, Alan, Al, GregKH, ... You might consider private email
> > stealth, but usually the changes are either (a) obvious or (b)
> > previously discussed. With BK, the situation is the same.
> >
> > So your argument is red herring -- which changes are _newly stealthed_
> > under BK? Do you have even ONE objectionable example?
>
> Of course I do: the patch to add the Bk files to Documentation. I will not
> call that objectionable - I object to it, but that is not the same thing. I
> will call it 'not discussed' when it should have been.
It was requested by Linus to be in the tree as a convenience, because he
and I and others were constantly bouncing it to new people.
I don't see the point of discussing such an obvious patch, outside of
ideological grounds. And when we start making decisions based on
ideology and politics rather than technical merit, we can all go home.
> > BK only changes the medium of transmission of patches to Linus,
> > and gives us _more_ information about submittors than pre-BK.
>
> I'm not arguing that BK is not a good way to do the grunt maintainance work.
> I think it is, and that's great. Heck, I'm not arguing against Bitkeeper *at
> all*. I'm arguing against building the bitkeeper documentation into the
> kernel tree, giving the impression that Bitkeeper is *required* for
> submitting patches.
I think the conclusion that BitKeeper is required, because of the
presence of this documentation, is ludicrous. And I have already stated
many times that I think objecting to the presence of the doc solely on
ideological grounds is also ludicrous.
Linus repeatedly says GNU patches are still acceptable, did you miss that?
> > Even if your conclusion is correct (it might be), how do you use
> > that to support the argument that, less discussion occurs due to BK?
>
> We haven't established that, we do see a strong correlation. But think.
> It's obvious anyway, why discuss anything in public when you don't have
> to? Just push it straight to Linus's tree, why bother with formalities?
> It's so easy.
This "it's easy" argument can easily be applied to the pre-BK days.
Straight-to-Linus-without-discussion is obviously faster, regardless of
whether BK is used or not.
> > As I mentioned, most merging with Linus occured in private anyway.
> > If you want to argue against that, go ahead. But don't try to blame
> > BitKeeper for it.
>
> I sense that the discussion of patches on lkml is in decline and I do
> blame Bitkeeper. Think I'm being paranoid? Prove me wrong.
huh?? "I <think this>. Am I wrong? Prove it."
Typically, one is expected to prove their arguments :)
Can you offer any evidence of patches that would have been discussed, in
the pre-BK days, that are no longer discussed? Support your argument,
please.
> > Deleting a document, and nothing
> > else, accomplishes no forward progress (except maybe spawning this
> > discussion on the evils of BK).
>
> Larry already agreed to it, and to provide a new home for it. Linus
> said 'don't be silly', but that was a long way back. So that's where
> it stands.
IOW, it stands at 'don't be silly'.
IMO the acceptance of your patch would indicate that Linus has started
accepting patches based on something other than technical merit.
_There_ is your slippery slope we should avoid at all costs.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 22:34 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 22:54 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-21 1:41 ` Rob Landley
2002-04-20 15:44 ` Daniel Phillips
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Rob Landley @ 2002-04-21 1:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips, Jeff Garzik
Cc: Linus Torvalds, Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Friday 19 April 2002 06:34 pm, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> I'm not arguing that BK is not a good way to do the grunt maintainance
> work. I think it is, and that's great. Heck, I'm not arguing against
> Bitkeeper *at all*. I'm arguing against building the bitkeeper
> documentation into the kernel tree, giving the impression that Bitkeeper is
> *required* for submitting patches.
I'm under the impression that Linus specifically asked for that
documentation, because BK is a tool he used that he was getting flooded with
questions about.
The question isn't really whether BitKeeper is required for kernel
development, it's a question of whether submitting patches to LINUS is
required for kernel development.
It seems like the BitKeeper documentation belongs together with the other
submitting patches documentation, and should be moved to the directory
"Documentation/Linus".
I.E. explicitly, the Kernel is only interested in documenting bitkeeper to
the extent we're documenting how Linus works. (And it IS how Linus works.)
If you're going to argue about Linus being a single point of failure (and
quite possibly a closed and irreproducible system for which we have not seen
source code), that's a can of worms I'm staying well away from this time
'round, thanks. :)
It might be a good idea if there was a Documentation/SubmittingPatches
directory that mentioned where the various active high visibility trees are
and what they're for (Linus's 2.5 tree, Dave Jones's tree, Marcelo's 2.4
tree, and Alan Cox's come to mind.) But that sort of wanders off into
Maintainers land (to get USB patches in, send them to Greg KH, who has this
email address and whose bitkeeper tree can be pulled from...) With all the
maintenance issues that implies...
> > > The next question you might ask is: are there more BK patches or
> > > more Non-BK, in total, on and off lkml? I don't have statistics at
> > > hand but I'm willing to bet that there are more BK patches, because
> > > that is how the bulk of the grunt tree maintainance is getting
> > > done these days.
> > >
> > > My conclusion: though there are more BK patches being applied to
> > > Linus's tree than non-BK,
> >
> > So... your conclusion is based on a guess which is based on a guess.
>
> Check it if you think I'm wrong.
I think he's saying that the burden of proof about there BEING a problem
rests on the one who is complaining about the problem. Complaining and then
expecting other people to prove there ISN'T a problem is kind of impolite...
> > Even if your conclusion is correct (it might be), how do you use
> > that to support the argument that, less discussion occurs due to BK?
>
> We haven't established that, we do see a strong correlation. But think.
> It's obvious anyway, why discuss anything in public when you don't have
> to? Just push it straight to Linus's tree, why bother with formalities?
> It's so easy.
And this differs from emailing him a patch without cc'ing linux-kernel in
what way?
Either you trust Linus's judgement about what patches to accept, or you use
somebody else's tree. Did I miss where voting on linux-kernel ever got a
patch in that Linus didn't want to merge, or kept one out that he did?
And AFTER the merge, you still get to flame all you want. And produce a
better patch to "clean up" the old one the way Martin "cleaned" Andre's name
right out of the maintainers file...
I seem to remember Al Viro taking a clue-by-four to Richard Gooch's head over
devfs on a fairly regular basis, and it was generally about the stuff that
had already made it into the tree, not about pending unmerged stuff.
The ONLY reduction in access I can see to Linus's pending unmerged patch
queue is due to the fact that completed patches don't hang around unmerged
for months at a time anymore. And since Bitkeeper seems to have
significantly contributed to lubricating Linus's in-box, I consider it a net
benefit.
Yes, it's a proprietary tool with "source under glass" licensing, but it's
basically a groupware application. Linus might as well be using proprietary
email software: as long as the email he sends and receives is still ascii
text, I can't say it makes a difference to me.
Think data, not applications. The kernel tarballs produced are completely
independent of bitkeeper. Patches contributed to the kernel tarballs have
been made without bitkeeper for a decade, and can still be made and
contributed without use of bitkeeper. The data being transmitted starts and
ends in the same open format as always (C source code in a filesystem->C
source code in a tarball), and the process in between is well understood and
could be done by hand (even with paper and pencil) if necessary. Bitkeeper
just helps Linus to scale.
Proprietary software sucks when you derive work from it in an exclusive and
dependent way. Then they own your derived work. (Like a microsoft word file
you wrote, which microsoft can charge you to access because they own word and
your file is useless without it.) When it's something you can use but don't
have to, it's basically a service. Not owning a service is unsuprising.
In this case, none of the Linux kernel's end product is derived from
bitkeeper. It's just using bitkeeper as an optional tool in the process of
producing that work. It's analogous to using a proprietary bios to boot your
Linux kernel: if it causes a problem, it can be replaced without changing the
kernel being booted in any way.
> > As I mentioned, most merging with Linus occured in private anyway.
> > If you want to argue against that, go ahead. But don't try to blame
> > BitKeeper for it.
>
> I sense that the discussion of patches on lkml is in decline and I do
> blame Bitkeeper. Think I'm being paranoid? Prove me wrong.
I sense that the chronic memory management problems of early 2.4 have finally
calmed down a bit, that 2.5 has opened so people have an outlet for CODE
rather than just plans for code, and that rather a lot of the intellectual
bandwidth of the list is currently devoted to keeping up with all the changes
in 2.5 that have already been made or are immediately pending, rather than
speculating about a future that hasn't been coded yet. And that the best
flamewar we've managed to come up with recently (before this one) has been
about the IDE subsystem (far too technical for most people to get really
upset about) rather than something juicy like CML2's use of a version of
Python that Red Hat doesn't ship yet. :)
I also sense that it's spring, the weather's nice and the flowers are
blooming, and certain people might be spending some of their time away from a
computer in a way that isn't as much of an option in the winter...
Rob
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 1:41 ` Rob Landley
@ 2002-04-20 15:44 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 15:52 ` Rob Landley
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-20 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rob Landley, Jeff Garzik; +Cc: Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
Here's my wrapup...
On Sunday 21 April 2002 03:41, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Friday 19 April 2002 06:34 pm, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > I'm not arguing that BK is not a good way to do the grunt maintainance
> > work. I think it is, and that's great. Heck, I'm not arguing against
> > Bitkeeper *at all*. I'm arguing against building the bitkeeper
> > documentation into the kernel tree, giving the impression that Bitkeeper is
> > *required* for submitting patches.
>
> I'm under the impression that Linus specifically asked for that
> documentation, because BK is a tool he used that he was getting flooded with
> questions about.
Yes, it came out in the course of the thread - Linus and Jeff had a private
email exchange in which Linus add Jeff to push his Bitkeeper documentation
files into the tree. Linus's tree, which is of course, 'our' tree as well,
in the sense that everybody here has code in it.
So... there are some who perceive the advent of Bitkeeper as a kind of
creeping takeover of the Linux development toolchain, and for these people,
seeing the documentation files appear in the Documentation directory as if
Bitkeeper were not only *a* sourcecode management tool, but *the* Linux
sourcecode management tool, is an irritant. Any argument that these people
exist, or that they are irritated?
By the way, I'm not one of them, and I'm not going to do any further
speaking for them. Just don't get the impression I'm kidding about this.
I have my own agenda: I'd like to see the development process carried out
more in the open and to that extent, increasing reliance on Bitkeeper,
with its convenient point-to-point push/pull paths is worrisome.
Interesting, Al Viro, the classic owner of a direct patch hotline to Linus,
continues to feed that pipeline with standard patches, which just goes to
show that Bitkeeper itself is not the problem. And in fact it's not even
right to accuse Al of developing in secret, because if you go trolling
through his patch directory on kernel.org you'll get a good snapshot of
what he's working on, and of course, if you've got thick skin you can
always ask him.
Al's kind of a special case though. What we have now is, *everybody* with
a piece of kernel to maintain is in on the private, point-to-point thing
now. It's efficient, no doubt, but I fear we're also weakening one of one
the basic driving forces of Linux development, that is, the public debate
part. If you go take a survey of current lkml postings you won't find a
lot of design discussion there, even though a huge amount of design work
is taking place at the moment, and many changes are taking place that will
affect kernel development for years to come.
It used to be that every major change would start with an [RFC]. Now the
typical way is to build private concensus between a few well-placed
individuals and go straight from there to feeding patches. At least,
that's my impression of the trend.
This may in fact be nothing more than a fear. However if there is any
chance I'm talking about a real phenomenon then I would indeed be remiss in
failing to draw attention to it.
If it's a real phenomenon then the question is, what if anything needs to
be done about it? Well, I'm not going to suggest anything at the moment
because, in truth, I don't have concrete suggestions to make, I just have
a nagging feeling that now is the time to apply a bit of the old eternal
vigilance.
Besides, OLS is coming up fast, and there the price of a plane ticket buys
you the chance to be part of the cabal (oops, the cabal that doesn't
exist) for a week. Erm, and if there are real issues, they are certain to
be raised.
All that said, I have to observe that the current process is *not broken*
in the sense that development is now proceeding at a truly impressive rate,
perhaps because of the success of kernel 2.4 in delivering true enterprise-
class functionality, thus removing the immediate pressure to perform. And
so, a lot of work is being done on longstanding deficiencies that were
never stoppers, but more in the class of 'wouldn't it be nice if this
didn't suck as much as it does'.
> The question isn't really whether BitKeeper is required for kernel
> development, it's a question of whether submitting patches to LINUS is
> required for kernel development.
>
> It seems like the BitKeeper documentation belongs together with the other
> submitting patches documentation, and should be moved to the directory
> "Documentation/Linus".
Well you know, that would be nice. At least it would show a little
sensitivity to the issue. Though arguably the prospect of Linus acting
sensitive could be more worrisome than anything ;-)
> I.E. explicitly, the Kernel is only interested in documenting bitkeeper to
> the extent we're documenting how Linus works. (And it IS how Linus works.)
> > > Even if your conclusion is correct (it might be), how do you use
> > > that to support the argument that, less discussion occurs due to BK?
> >
> > We haven't established that, we do see a strong correlation. But think.
> > It's obvious anyway, why discuss anything in public when you don't have
> > to? Just push it straight to Linus's tree, why bother with formalities?
> > It's so easy.
>
> And this differs from emailing him a patch without cc'ing linux-kernel in
> what way?
Depending on the nature of the patch, both are wrong. It's just getting very
easy to mix fundamental changes in with the 'boring' patch stream. IMHO, the
temptation to do this needs to be resisted.
> Either you trust Linus's judgment about what patches to accept, or you use
> somebody else's tree. Did I miss where voting on linux-kernel ever got a
> patch in that Linus didn't want to merge, or kept one out that he did?
Not voting, discussion. Without the discussion we miss the chance to get
thousands of eyeballs on the issue, some of which may be more experienced in
certain aspects of the work than the designer/submitted.
> And AFTER the merge, you still get to flame all you want.
No no no. Think about what you just said. Barn. Door. Horse. Gone.
> The ONLY reduction in access I can see to Linus's pending unmerged patch
> queue is due to the fact that completed patches don't hang around unmerged
> for months at a time anymore. And since Bitkeeper seems to have
> significantly contributed to lubricating Linus's in-box, I consider it a net
> benefit.
Yes, I haven't tried that yet myself but we shall see. True, I haven't noticed
a lot of grumbling about dropped patches lately. Replaced by other grumbling
I suppose.
> Proprietary software sucks when you derive work from it in an exclusive and
> dependent way. Then they own your derived work. (Like a microsoft word file
> you wrote, which microsoft can charge you to access because they own word and
> your file is useless without it.) When it's something you can use but don't
> have to, it's basically a service. Not owning a service is unsurprising.
Huh. I think the advertising material that Bitkeeper has now got in the Linux
tree is excessive, given its license, and I don't have more to say about that.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 15:44 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-21 15:52 ` Rob Landley
2002-04-21 15:59 ` Russell King
2002-04-21 16:02 ` arjan
2 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Rob Landley @ 2002-04-21 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips, Jeff Garzik; +Cc: Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Saturday 20 April 2002 11:44 am, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Here's my wrapup...
>
> On Sunday 21 April 2002 03:41, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Friday 19 April 2002 06:34 pm, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > I'm not arguing that BK is not a good way to do the grunt maintainance
> > > work. I think it is, and that's great. Heck, I'm not arguing against
> > > Bitkeeper *at all*. I'm arguing against building the bitkeeper
> > > documentation into the kernel tree, giving the impression that
> > > Bitkeeper is *required* for submitting patches.
> >
> > I'm under the impression that Linus specifically asked for that
> > documentation, because BK is a tool he used that he was getting flooded
> > with questions about.
>
> Yes, it came out in the course of the thread - Linus and Jeff had a private
> email exchange in which Linus add Jeff to push his Bitkeeper documentation
> files into the tree. Linus's tree, which is of course, 'our' tree as well,
> in the sense that everybody here has code in it.
You could say the same of Alan Cox's tree, Marcelo's tree, or Dave Jones's
tree. They're all public trees acting in some capacity as code integration
and exchange points.
> So... there are some who perceive the advent of Bitkeeper as a kind of
> creeping takeover of the Linux development toolchain, and for these people,
> seeing the documentation files appear in the Documentation directory as if
> Bitkeeper were not only *a* sourcecode management tool, but *the* Linux
> sourcecode management tool, is an irritant.
Nopt the Linux source code management tool, the *Linus* source code
management tool.
Yeah, I typo those two myself all the time. (I wonder if Linus himself does?
:)
> Any argument that these people exist, or that they are irritated?
There are people still mightily upset that devfs is in the tree, and see THAT
as a creeping takeover. And ACPI -IS- a creeping takeover, although mostly
on the part of hardware manufacturers.
The existence of irritated people is a constant. There are a bunch of very
high level people irritated by the binary modules policy (on both ends: that
binary-only modules are allowed at all, AND that there's no consistent binary
module interface from version to version). And both sides have a point, but
reality continues unimpeded regardless.
If Linus is documenting how to work with Linus, it's his right. The process
could involve a live chicken and spandex, and if that's what he has found to
be the most efficient way to work...
Putting the submitting patches stuff together into a single subdirectory and
pointing out that what's being documented is actually Linus, not the tools
themselves, would probably help clarify the issue a bit.
> By the way, I'm not one of them, and I'm not going to do any further
> speaking for them.
Why have you done this much?
> I have my own agenda: I'd like to see the development process carried out
> more in the open and to that extent, increasing reliance on Bitkeeper,
> with its convenient point-to-point push/pull paths is worrisome.
So you're worried that the other tool is convenient?
Does this mean you want developers to use something inconvenient? Or make
it
If Linus and the top dozen lieutenants all had special scripts and encryption
keys set up (all using open source software) so that their code got to each
other's systems more easily and was looked at first before shoveling through
the signal to noise ratio on lkml, or the random spam linus gets daily
porting some subsystem to c++...
Bitkeeper is not open source, but it's by no means exclusive.
The above scenario would be open source, but there -IS- no software more
exclusive than GPG. (That's what it's FOR...)
> Al's kind of a special case though. What we have now is, *everybody* with
> a piece of kernel to maintain is in on the private, point-to-point thing
> now. It's efficient, no doubt, but I fear we're also weakening one of one
> the basic driving forces of Linux development, that is, the public debate
> part.
Cut, halt, wait, stop, hold it, whoa, cease, desist...
Bit of momentum built up there.
I should write a "patch penguin aftermath" thing with what we all LEARNED
from this. Linus has seperated the maintainers list into two layers because
he cream-skimmed out a half dozen lieutenents in charge of major subsystems.
Those lieutenants have a direct hotline to Linus, and the maintainers are
expected to filter their patches through them. Individual contributers
filter their patches through the maintainers, then the lieutenants, then
Linus.
This is not a bad thing, it means that by the time Linus sees code it's been
code reviewed by two people: one with intimate knowledge of the particular
subsystem and the other with broader knowledge of other areas it needs to
interoprate with.
And this hierarchy, now that people know about it, is probably equally as
responsible for the declogging of the patch queue as Bitkeeper is. Now when
a filesystem patch gets ignored by linus, people know they have to get Jens
Axboe to sign off on it first.
A list of who the lieutenants are and what maintainers are under them would
be a worthy goal. I've tried to assemble such a list a couple times, but
it's too much of a judgement call from this end. (And Linus doesn't want to
be pinned down.) Off the top of my head, Al Viro, Jens Axboe, Greg KH, Jeff
Garzik, and Dave Jones all seem to be people Linus listens directly to on a
regular basis. Strangely enough Andrea Arcangeli is NOT: his patches tend to
get filtered through somebody like Dave before winding up in Linus's tree,
although Linus does irregularly scoop them up directly as well. (Rik van
Riel used to be, but then the whole 2.4 memory management thing happened...)
The important thing is that a maintainer know who their lieutenant is, when
there's somebody they need to go through to get Linus's attention.
And all this has NOTHING to do with bitkeeper.
> If you go take a survey of current lkml postings you won't find a
> lot of design discussion there, even though a huge amount of design work
> is taking place at the moment, and many changes are taking place that will
> affect kernel development for years to come.
O(1) scheduler and numa? Preemptible kernel? Reverse mapping VM? Ratcache
page tables? Software suspend? The new build system? Redoing the boot
process around ramfs? Are you saying these haven't been discussed?
I seem to remember rather a LOT of discussion of Jens' new block layer (about
half of which I could follow), and the need to slash-and-burn the SCSI
subsystem. And the big move away from device numbers Linus was on about a
while back still doesn't seem to have happened yet, although they've been
busy...
> It used to be that every major change would start with an [RFC].
When exactly was this mythical golden age, and did it last longer than a
month? I don't remember the VM switch in 2.4.10 involving an RFC at any
point. And there were about five different proposed scheduler rewrites being
argued over for most of a year, which were all obsolted by Ingo's O(1)
scheduler which basically came out of the blue one day and was in the kernel
a week or two later...
> Now the
> typical way is to build private concensus between a few well-placed
> individuals and go straight from there to feeding patches. At least,
> that's my impression of the trend.
It continues to be Linus's call about what goes into Linus's tree. There
have been times when he's disagreed with EVERYBODY else. (Is there somebody
OTHER than Linus who thinks having a kernel level debugger would be a bad
idea?)
http://lwn.net/2000/0914/a/lt-debugger.php3
Anything else has been, and continues to be, an illusion. We have the choice
of using other trees if this is unacceptable, but so far it's been rather
nice. Consensus is a convenience, nothing more.
> This may in fact be nothing more than a fear. However if there is any
> chance I'm talking about a real phenomenon then I would indeed be remiss in
> failing to draw attention to it.
So you aren't proposing a solution, are not even entirely certain of the
nature (or existence) of the problem, but you'd like to draw attention to an
issue? Just trying to understand here...
Generally, in a situation like that, I try asking questions. Works For Me
(tm). (And yes posting errors (or guesses) is often more effective than
asking questions, but the goal's the same...)
> If it's a real phenomenon then the question is, what if anything needs to
> be done about it?
That sentence belongs in congress, not on a technical list...
> Well, I'm not going to suggest anything at the moment
> because, in truth, I don't have concrete suggestions to make, I just have
> a nagging feeling that now is the time to apply a bit of the old eternal
> vigilance.
What's the status of integrating the ext2 directory index stuff into ext3, by
the way? (I realise that's completely off topic, but I'm curious...)
> Besides, OLS is coming up fast, and there the price of a plane ticket buys
> you the chance to be part of the cabal (oops, the cabal that doesn't
> exist) for a week. Erm, and if there are real issues, they are certain to
> be raised.
There Is No Cabal (tm).
> All that said, I have to observe that the current process is *not broken*
Use a bigger hammer. :)
> > It seems like the BitKeeper documentation belongs together with the other
> > submitting patches documentation, and should be moved to the directory
> > "Documentation/Linus".
>
> Well you know, that would be nice. At least it would show a little
> sensitivity to the issue. Though arguably the prospect of Linus acting
> sensitive could be more worrisome than anything ;-)
Okay, step back and ask the question: What do you WANT? (Do you HAVE a goal
in mind in this discussion? I generally fall back on "education" myself.
Good, all-purpose goal. But it does tend to involve a different ratio of
declarative to interrogative statements. Or at least a lot of weasel words
like "tends" and "generally" indicating willingness to be contradicted... :)
> > And this differs from emailing him a patch without cc'ing linux-kernel in
> > what way?
>
> Depending on the nature of the patch, both are wrong.
Memo to self: emailing a patch to Linus is wrong. Check.
> It's just getting
> very easy to mix fundamental changes in with the 'boring' patch stream.
> IMHO, the temptation to do this needs to be resisted.
You mean like the out of the blue 2.4.10 VM switch?
What do you mean "needs"? Who needs it? (Is this the same "they" who are not
members of the cabal? Everybody's doing it? Nixon's "silent majority".)
> > Either you trust Linus's judgment about what patches to accept, or you
> > use somebody else's tree. Did I miss where voting on linux-kernel ever
> > got a patch in that Linus didn't want to merge, or kept one out that he
> > did?
>
> Not voting, discussion. Without the discussion we miss the chance to get
> thousands of eyeballs on the issue, some of which may be more experienced
> in certain aspects of the work than the designer/submitted.
Open source is good at debugging. AFTER the fact. People notice WHEN it
breaks, not that it's GOING to break.
Linus released a brown paper bag 2.2.0 and 2.4.0 largely because everybody
who was going to test it ahead of time already HAD, and the ONLY way to find
the remaining bugs was to let people put it into service in the field and see
where it broke.
The number of people who seriously thump on stuff ahead of time (run
prepatches, or even the whole 2.5 development series) could probably
comfortably fit into a single shopping mall, without making it seem
particularly crowded...
> > And AFTER the merge, you still get to flame all you want.
>
> No no no. Think about what you just said. Barn. Door. Horse. Gone.
Huh? You've never seen a changelog entry with the words "back out" in it?
Think about Al Viro ripping somebody a new one because of some stupidity that
went into the latest prepatch. Think about what Martin is doing to all the
block copied code Andre Hedrick put in the tree...
> > The ONLY reduction in access I can see to Linus's pending unmerged patch
> > queue is due to the fact that completed patches don't hang around
> > unmerged for months at a time anymore. And since Bitkeeper seems to have
> > significantly contributed to lubricating Linus's in-box, I consider it a
> > net benefit.
>
> Yes, I haven't tried that yet myself but we shall see. True, I haven't
> noticed a lot of grumbling about dropped patches lately. Replaced by other
> grumbling I suppose.
You mean like this thread?
> > Proprietary software sucks when you derive work from it in an exclusive
> > and dependent way. Then they own your derived work. (Like a microsoft
> > word file you wrote, which microsoft can charge you to access because
> > they own word and your file is useless without it.) When it's something
> > you can use but don't have to, it's basically a service. Not owning a
> > service is unsurprising.
>
> Huh. I think the advertising material that Bitkeeper has now got in the
> Linux tree is excessive, given its license, and I don't have more to say
> about that.
The documentation wasn't written by bitkeeper, I believe it was written by
Jeff Garzik. It wasn't requested or placed in the tree by bitkeeper, it was
requested and placed in the tree by Linus.
I'm pretty darn sure this counts as an honest, spontaneous, grassroots
endorsement. Yes, such a thing is possible, even in the US...
Rob
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 15:44 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 15:52 ` Rob Landley
@ 2002-04-21 15:59 ` Russell King
2002-04-20 16:10 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 16:02 ` arjan
2 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Russell King @ 2002-04-21 15:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips
Cc: Rob Landley, Jeff Garzik, Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 05:44:07PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Here's my wrapup...
What a shame...
> This may in fact be nothing more than a fear. However if there is any
> chance I'm talking about a real phenomenon then I would indeed be remiss in
> failing to draw attention to it.
I've been trying to get you to quantify this further. So far, all we've
seen are half-sides of the story. Please give the full story:
1. Quantify how much discussion about GNU patches there is on LKML in
total.
2. Quantify how much discussion about BK merges there is on LKML.
And now this is the important bit that hasn't been done:
Including how many of each class:
a) have been included into Linus' tree.
b) have not been included into Linus' tree.
Then you can come up with sensible figures that actually mean something,
rather than some vague fear about a phenomenon that may in fact be a
fantasy.
Facts. Facts. Facts.
--
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 15:59 ` Russell King
@ 2002-04-20 16:10 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 16:15 ` Russell King
2002-04-21 16:15 ` Jeff Garzik
0 siblings, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-20 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Russell King; +Cc: Rob Landley, Jeff Garzik, Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Sunday 21 April 2002 17:59, Russell King wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 05:44:07PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > This may in fact be nothing more than a fear. However if there is any
> > chance I'm talking about a real phenomenon then I would indeed be remiss in
> > failing to draw attention to it.
>
> I've been trying to get you to quantify this further. So far, all we've
> seen are half-sides of the story. Please give the full story:
>
> 1. Quantify how much discussion about GNU patches there is on LKML in
> total.
> 2. Quantify how much discussion about BK merges there is on LKML.
I already did both, and posted the results. I put considerable energy into
it, and I am not going to put more time into it. If you want to dispute my
(unscientific) results then please repeat my survey or carry out one in
accordance with your own, presumably higher standards.
> And now this is the important bit that hasn't been done:
>
> Including how many of each class:
> a) have been included into Linus' tree.
> b) have not been included into Linus' tree.
True. I suspect somebody can just look at some statistics somewhere to know
that. Personally, I don't know how to do that efficiently and I'm not going
to do it. I'll speculate though: I guess that BK patches outnumber GNU
patches by more than a factor of 3.
> Then you can come up with sensible figures that actually mean something,
> rather than some vague fear about a phenomenon that may in fact be a
> fantasy.
>
> Facts. Facts. Facts.
Right. I made the conjecture, if you wish to verify/disprove it then feel
free. I did my share of the work already.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 16:10 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-21 16:15 ` Russell King
2002-04-21 16:15 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Russell King @ 2002-04-21 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips
Cc: Rob Landley, Jeff Garzik, Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 06:10:12PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Sunday 21 April 2002 17:59, Russell King wrote:
> > I've been trying to get you to quantify this further. So far, all we've
> > seen are half-sides of the story. Please give the full story:
> >
> > 1. Quantify how much discussion about GNU patches there is on LKML in
> > total.
> > 2. Quantify how much discussion about BK merges there is on LKML.
>
> I already did both, and posted the results.
Yes you did. The results were meaningless without reference to which
gets into Linus' tree and which don't.
> If you want to dispute my
> (unscientific) results then please repeat my survey or carry out one in
> accordance with your own, presumably higher standards.
Shrug - I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove _your_ point to
myself.
> Right. I made the conjecture,
Correct, and it isn't up to me to prove it.
> if you wish to verify/disprove it then feel
> free. I did my share of the work already.
I therefore consider this matter inadequately proven and closed.
--
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 16:10 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 16:15 ` Russell King
@ 2002-04-21 16:15 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-21 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips
Cc: Russell King, Rob Landley, Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 06:10:12PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Right. I made the conjecture, if you wish to verify/disprove it then feel
> free. I did my share of the work already.
This is too funny.
If you are unwilling to verify your own conjecture, go ahead and admit
it was nothing but pointless, un-backed-up wanking. :)
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 15:44 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 15:52 ` Rob Landley
2002-04-21 15:59 ` Russell King
@ 2002-04-21 16:02 ` arjan
2 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: arjan @ 2002-04-21 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: linux-kernel
In article <E16yx1z-0000jV-00@starship> you wrote:
> It used to be that every major change would start with an [RFC]. Now the
> typical way is to build private concensus between a few well-placed
> individuals and go straight from there to feeding patches. At least,
> that's my impression of the trend.
I disagree with you here. A short 2.5 list:
BIO - Jens posted patches for MONTHS to lkml (or changelogs with the patch
on kernel.org); plenty of room for discussion
O(1) scheduler - discussed quite a bit on lkml before Linus merged it
Preempt - discussed to the extreme before being merged
Ratcache - posted for months and discussed a lot on lkml
Andrew Morten's death-to-buffer - posted to lkml quite a bit, but of course
it needs to work before it can be judged
VFS - you already said that you can see what's going on here
Now that leaves drivers and stuff. Well, for drivers, the maintainer
submitting updates, especially minor ones, directly to Linus
or the subsystem maintainer is fine by me.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 22:01 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 22:20 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-20 22:30 ` Stelian Pop
2002-04-21 2:46 ` Ian Molton
2002-04-20 22:37 ` Russell King
2002-04-20 23:15 ` Kenneth Johansson
3 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Stelian Pop @ 2002-04-20 22:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 12:01:35AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> My conclusion: though there are more BK patches being applied to Linus's
> tree than non-BK, they are generating less discussion on lkml than non-BK
> patches do. Or to put it bluntly: BK patches are not being discussed.
Or maybe using a SCM puts more pressure on the developper which
writes better code, which will get accepted with less discussion.
In general, when you seek discussion with a quick and dirty piece
of code, you post a patch, not the BK equivalent, since you know
this will not get accepted anyway...
Stelian.
--
Stelian Pop <stelian.pop@fr.alcove.com>
Alcove - http://www.alcove.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 22:30 ` Stelian Pop
@ 2002-04-21 2:46 ` Ian Molton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Ian Molton @ 2002-04-21 2:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stelian Pop; +Cc: phillips, torvalds, aia21, linux-kernel
Stelian Pop Awoke this dragon, who will now respond:
> Or maybe using a SCM puts more pressure on the developper which
> writes better code, which will get accepted with less discussion.
I dont buy that. Its well known that teams of programmers tend to write
WORSE code when they dont talk to each other.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 22:01 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 22:20 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 22:30 ` Stelian Pop
@ 2002-04-20 22:37 ` Russell King
2002-04-20 23:15 ` Kenneth Johansson
3 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Russell King @ 2002-04-20 22:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 12:01:35AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> I went through the 1,000 or so most recent postings on lkml, looking for
> patches that generated discussion. Here's what I found:
Nice work. However, you forgot the other half of the job - finding out
how many BK "patches" got merged into Linus' tree, and how many GNU
patches. Only then can we make a real comparison.
And yes, I've done Linus a favour - I've deleted him from the CC: list
because he's said he's not interested in this discussion.
--
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 22:01 ` Daniel Phillips
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2002-04-20 22:37 ` Russell King
@ 2002-04-20 23:15 ` Kenneth Johansson
2002-04-20 17:05 ` Daniel Phillips
3 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Kenneth Johansson @ 2002-04-20 23:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips
Cc: Jeff Garzik, Linus Torvalds, Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
Daniel Phillips wrote:
> My conclusion: though there are more BK patches being applied to Linus's
> tree than non-BK, they are generating less discussion on lkml than non-BK
> patches do. Or to put it bluntly: BK patches are not being discussed.
I think your conclusion is wrong and there has always gone patches directly to
Linus even before BK. With BK we can actually see who did what and often why so if
something gets in that should not we know who to blame. If anything this should
make people think one extra time before hitting the send button.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 23:15 ` Kenneth Johansson
@ 2002-04-20 17:05 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 17:15 ` Jeff Garzik
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-20 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kenneth Johansson; +Cc: Jeff Garzik, Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Sunday 21 April 2002 01:15, Kenneth Johansson wrote:
> Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> > My conclusion: though there are more BK patches being applied to Linus's
> > tree than non-BK, they are generating less discussion on lkml than non-BK
> > patches do. Or to put it bluntly: BK patches are not being discussed.
>
> I think your conclusion is wrong and there has always gone patches directly to
> Linus even before BK. With BK we can actually see who did what and often why so if
> something gets in that should not we know who to blame. If anything this should
> make people think one extra time before hitting the send button.
Good point. Perhaps we extend this idea to: A patch goes into the tree that
really should have been discussed but wasn't, now we know who to beat up.
Err, like the BK documentation patch.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 17:05 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-21 17:15 ` Jeff Garzik
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-21 17:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Kenneth Johansson, Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 07:05:40PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Good point. Perhaps we extend this idea to: A patch goes into the tree that
> really should have been discussed but wasn't, now we know who to beat up.
> Err, like the BK documentation patch.
I of course question that said patch needed to be discussed beyond the
discussion that already occurred (admittedly in private)
But yep. You know who to beat up about these things :)
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 21:07 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-19 22:01 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-21 1:38 ` Oliver Xymoron
2002-04-21 15:32 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Oliver Xymoron @ 2002-04-21 1:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik
Cc: Daniel Phillips, Linus Torvalds, Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Which patches are the stealth patches?
The ones that say 'pull from here' are pretty opaque and seem to go past
without much discussion. Off the top of my head, I'd say about
I've seen about as many bk pushes as pulls but that could be perceptual
bias.
--
"Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 1:38 ` Oliver Xymoron
@ 2002-04-21 15:32 ` Jeff Garzik
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-21 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Oliver Xymoron
Cc: Daniel Phillips, Linus Torvalds, Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 08:38:26PM -0500, Oliver Xymoron wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> > Which patches are the stealth patches?
>
> The ones that say 'pull from here' are pretty opaque and seem to go past
> without much discussion. Off the top of my head, I'd say about
> I've seen about as many bk pushes as pulls but that could be perceptual
> bias.
The point has been made that those patches were sent to Linus without
CC'ing lkml, in the past. Do you see any newly stealthed patches, which
were not opaque pre-BK?
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 21:02 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 21:07 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-20 22:00 ` Stevie O
2002-04-20 22:14 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-04-20 22:31 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Stevie O @ 2002-04-20 22:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
From what I can see, this is the situation:
Daniel is now bothered by the presence of BK documentation in the Linux kernel tree. Therefore, he submitted a patch to remove this documentation.
Just about everybody else involved in this thread accuses him of censorship, for attempting to restrict the dissemination of ideas. I do not know whether all of these people use BK; all I know is the "censorship" claim, on the basis that he is restricting the dissemination of information.
I ask this: What if, instead of Daniel removing this documentation change, Linus himself did the patch?
2600 asserted that source code is speech, with the DeCSS case. I doubt EVERYONE here agrees with that, but I do agree that source code is a very precise form of communcating ideas...
(1) If I were to write a driver, and submit it for inclusion with the mainline kernel, would Linus be "censoring" me if he did not include my patch?
And here is a better reason:
(2) If I had such a driver included in mainline, and that driver broke in the 2.5 series -- due to, say, BIO changes, VFS changes, procfs changes, DMA changes, PCI subsystem changes, you get the idea -- and as a result, Linus chose to remove it from mainline, he's restricting the dissemination of my ideas (driver). Does that mean he is censoring me?
--
Stevie-O
*This sig was deleted for violating the DMCA.*
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 22:00 ` Stevie O
@ 2002-04-20 22:14 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-04-21 2:48 ` Ian Molton
2002-04-20 22:31 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Anton Altaparmakov @ 2002-04-20 22:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stevie O; +Cc: linux-kernel
At 23:00 20/04/02, Stevie O wrote:
> From what I can see, this is the situation:
>
>Daniel is now bothered by the presence of BK documentation in the Linux
>kernel tree. Therefore, he submitted a patch to remove this documentation.
>
>Just about everybody else involved in this thread accuses him of
>censorship, for attempting to restrict the dissemination of ideas. I do
>not know whether all of these people use BK; all I know is the
>"censorship" claim, on the basis that he is restricting the dissemination
>of information.
>
>I ask this: What if, instead of Daniel removing this documentation change,
>Linus himself did the patch?
That is completely different. Linus owns the Linux kernel. He is the
dictator on what happens with it. As such he can do with it as he pleases.
If anyone doesn't like his actions, they are free to fork the kernel and do
whatever they want. That is what the GPL is all about!
This thread is getting sillier and sillier...
Best regards,
Anton
>2600 asserted that source code is speech, with the DeCSS case. I doubt
>EVERYONE here agrees with that, but I do agree that source code is a very
>precise form of communcating ideas...
>
>
>(1) If I were to write a driver, and submit it for inclusion with the
>mainline kernel, would Linus be "censoring" me if he did not include my patch?
>
>And here is a better reason:
>
>(2) If I had such a driver included in mainline, and that driver broke in
>the 2.5 series -- due to, say, BIO changes, VFS changes, procfs changes,
>DMA changes, PCI subsystem changes, you get the idea -- and as a result,
>Linus chose to remove it from mainline, he's restricting the dissemination
>of my ideas (driver). Does that mean he is censoring me?
>
>--
>
>Stevie-O
>
>*This sig was deleted for violating the DMCA.*
>
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
"I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cantab.net> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS Maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.openprojects.net
WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 22:00 ` Stevie O
2002-04-20 22:14 ` Anton Altaparmakov
@ 2002-04-20 22:31 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-20 22:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stevie O; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 06:00:36PM -0400, Stevie O wrote:
> (1) If I were to write a driver, and submit it for inclusion with
> the mainline kernel, would Linus be "censoring" me if he did not
> include my patch?
(IMO my answer fits for both these examples)
> (2) If I had such a driver included in mainline, and that driver
> broke in the 2.5 series -- due to, say, BIO changes, VFS changes,
> procfs changes, DMA changes, PCI subsystem changes, you get the
> idea -- and as a result, Linus chose to remove it from mainline,
> he's restricting the dissemination of my ideas (driver). Does that
> mean he is censoring me?
In the strictest sense, yes. But the key difference would be his
reasoning in your example would be technical, whereas Daniel's stated
reason was ideology.
One of the reasons why I like the Linux kernel is the freedom to make
the best technical decision, regardless of conflicting ideologies or
politics.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 17:32 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 17:51 ` Linus Torvalds
@ 2002-04-20 17:51 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-19 18:27 ` Daniel Phillips
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2002-04-20 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 07:32:36PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Saturday 20 April 2002 19:09, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > >
> > > And some have a more difficult one. So it goes.
> >
> > How?
>
> Those who now chose to carry out their development using the patch+email
> method, and prefer to submit everything for discussion on lkml before it
> gets included are now largely out of the loop. Things just seem to *appear*
> in the tree now, without much fanfare. That's my impression.
>
> Rather than Linux development becoming more open, as I'd hoped with the
> advent of Bitkeeper, it seems to be turning more in the direction of
> becoming a closed club. This may be fun if you're a member of the club.
You are sort of right and sort of wrong. The changes are mostly ending
up in some BK tree and Linus pulls from that tree. Most of the trees
are on bkbits.net (there are about 130 different ones at last count).
The problem is that there is not an easy way to get a handle on what is
in Linus' tree and what is not, and it's just insane to ask people to
sit around and diff the trees even if BK does make that process somewhat
easier.
An obvious improvement would be to have an "overview" web page which showed
you the list of changes not present in Linus' tree but present in any of
the other trees. Probably sorted by tree so you could see
linuxusb.bkbits.net/linux-2.5
37 changesets (click here for details)
gkernel.bkbits.net/vm
12 changesets (click here for details)
Etc.
If you dump the licensing discussion and think about how BK could help
you, you can see we are half to an improvement over the "mail to the
list" model. The problem I had with the "mail to the list" model was
that it was easy to miss something and then not realized that you
had missed it. Now a lot of that stuff is ending up on bkbits.net
and if there was a way to say "tell me everything that is there but
not here", that would be a distinct improvement, it means that the
"mail" is archived and you can find it when you want it.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 17:51 ` Larry McVoy
@ 2002-04-19 18:27 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 17:51 ` Rob Landley
2002-04-20 18:41 ` Jeff Garzik
0 siblings, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-19 18:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Saturday 20 April 2002 19:51, Larry McVoy wrote:
> If you dump the licensing discussion and think about how BK could help
> you, you can see we are half to an improvement over the "mail to the
> list" model. The problem I had with the "mail to the list" model was
> that it was easy to miss something and then not realized that you
> had missed it.
True, but it also seemed to create a certain energy that now seems to be
slipping away. Maybe this is just called 'maturity', I don't know. Now,
my original objection was *only* to the inclusion of the Bitkeeper
documentation in the kernel tree. A well-known developer who has chosen
to stay out of the discussion - perhaps by reason of being asleep - used
the term 'bitkeeper mafia'. That's not a good sign. At this juncture, a
little moderation, as you've shown, could do a lot to mitigate that
perception.
Then it would be back to the usual programming: how to make it all better.
> Now a lot of that stuff is ending up on bkbits.net
> and if there was a way to say "tell me everything that is there but
> not here", that would be a distinct improvement, it means that the
> "mail" is archived and you can find it when you want it.
The missing part is watching the mail go by. It's the discourse, where
has it gone? What happened to the times when patches were actually
discussed before going into the tree? Can we somehow have that and
bitkeeper too... and a fairy castle...
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 18:27 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-20 17:51 ` Rob Landley
2002-04-20 18:41 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Rob Landley @ 2002-04-20 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips, Larry McVoy
Cc: Linus Torvalds, Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Friday 19 April 2002 02:27 pm, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> The missing part is watching the mail go by. It's the discourse, where
> has it gone? What happened to the times when patches were actually
> discussed before going into the tree? Can we somehow have that and
> bitkeeper too... and a fairy castle...
I have noticed somewhat less of the "I sent this patch to linus nine times
now and never heard back" kind of discussion. Can't say I miss it. :)
Patches might be going in with less discussion simply because they're going
in more quickly and easily, rather than sitting around for weeks with
everybody second-guessing them simply because Linus didn't notice them until
the fifth resend. If it no longer takes two months to get an otherwise
completed patch into the tree, then yes, there will be less discussion of it
on the list.
There's still plenty of discussion AFTER they go in. And they have been
known to get reverted (and/or "cleaned up" with a weed-whacker)...
Rob
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 18:27 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 17:51 ` Rob Landley
@ 2002-04-20 18:41 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-20 18:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips
Cc: Larry McVoy, Linus Torvalds, Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 08:27:58PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> The missing part is watching the mail go by. It's the discourse, where
> has it gone? What happened to the times when patches were actually
> discussed before going into the tree? Can we somehow have that and
> bitkeeper too... and a fairy castle...
The level of discussion of my own patches is exactly the same, pre- and
post-BitKeeper.
What patches do you think are being sneaked into the tree?
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 17:05 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 17:09 ` Linus Torvalds
@ 2002-04-20 17:15 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 17:19 ` Dave Jones
2 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-20 17:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Anton Altaparmakov, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 07:05:52PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:51, you wrote:
> > The fact that some developers use bitkeeper has no effect on other
> > developers.
>
> On the contrary, I think it has divided the kernel developers firmly into
> two classes: the "ins" and the "outs".
I disagree -- Andrew Morton and Al Viro don't sent patches to Linus via
BK, AFAIK, and their patches are getting in.
Another example, Jean Tourrhes (sp?), the wireless and IrDA guy. I have
agreed to become his "patch penguin", which IMHO has already translated
into less resends for Jean through my and Linus's use of BK. He sends
GNU patches, so his process is unchanged, he only sees patches _not_
getting dropped[1].
And a further counter-example (to my shame), Anton A. sent me a BK patch
during Linus's vacation, and I have not yet sent it forward, showing
that BK doesn't necessarily imply auto-approval.
Jeff
[1] of course there is often a Garzik-delay :) but I don't drop patches
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 17:05 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 17:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-20 17:15 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-20 17:19 ` Dave Jones
2 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Dave Jones @ 2002-04-20 17:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Anton Altaparmakov, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 07:05:52PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > The fact that some developers use bitkeeper has no effect on other
> > developers.
> On the contrary, I think it has divided the kernel developers firmly into
> two classes: the "ins" and the "outs".
Care to back that up with numbers ? Take another look at the statistics
Larry posted after the 2.5.8 merge. ISTR pretty much a 50/50 split of
bk merges and regular GNU patches. Whilst a large proportion of the gnu
patches were from the largish sync I did, this ratio seems to be holding
up over every release.
> Oh I don't disagree at all. Bitkeeper is a big improvement over what
> existed before. But it is proprietary. Which other tool in the tool chain
> is proprietary?
Film at 11: proprietory tool used in Linux.
Maybe we should back out all those fixes the Stanford people found with
their checker ? Maybe we should back out the x86-64 port seeing as it
was (partly) done with a commercial simulator?
> > I don't see why there should be any kind of split or anything like that.
> > Everything continues as before. It's just that some developers now have a
> > much easier life...
> And some have a more difficult one. So it goes.
You've not pointed out where this difficulty is yet. Apart from
developers having to wade through this same discussion every third week.
--
| Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
| SuSE Labs
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 16:51 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-04-19 17:05 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-20 17:58 ` Eric W. Biederman
2002-04-20 18:35 ` Anton Altaparmakov
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Eric W. Biederman @ 2002-04-20 17:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Anton Altaparmakov; +Cc: Daniel Phillips, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cantab.net> writes:
> The fact that some developers use bitkeeper has no effect on other
> developers. Well ok, it means that the bk using developers can work faster but
> that is not at issue here...
Faster? BK has no impact on the fundamentals of code development. Only
on the problem of merging code. Only when the bottle neck is merge speed
does it really come into play.
For Linus this is obviously a very important issue. For some of the
rest of us it is less so.
For myself I find great benefit in reviewing my own patches, and in
having other people look at them and review them. I may be wrong
but I do not see bitkeeper helping in that regard (except reduce
the noise of renames).
Eric
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 17:58 ` Eric W. Biederman
@ 2002-04-20 18:35 ` Anton Altaparmakov
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Anton Altaparmakov @ 2002-04-20 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric W. Biederman; +Cc: Daniel Phillips, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
At 18:58 20/04/02, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cantab.net> writes:
> > The fact that some developers use bitkeeper has no effect on other
> > developers. Well ok, it means that the bk using developers can work
> faster but
> > that is not at issue here...
>
>Faster? BK has no impact on the fundamentals of code development. Only
>on the problem of merging code. Only when the bottle neck is merge speed
>does it really come into play.
I would disagree personally. The more I play with the GUI tools provided by
bitkeeper the more interesting things i discover. For example actually
SEEING how patches fit together, being able to see what each patch did,
looking at a file and having each line annotated as to who added it and in
which patch makes it easier for me to understand how the code I am trying
to understand has evolved and why certain things are the way they are. But
that is something very personal to me, others may not find it useful...
>For Linus this is obviously a very important issue. For some of the
>rest of us it is less so.
>
>For myself I find great benefit in reviewing my own patches, and in
>having other people look at them and review them. I may be wrong
>but I do not see bitkeeper helping in that regard (except reduce
>the noise of renames).
I really like the way bk citool works because it makes my changelogs a lot
more useful as I actually see what I have changed when writing them. But
again, that is just me...
Best regards,
Anton
--
"I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cantab.net> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS Maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.openprojects.net
WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 16:21 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 16:51 ` Anton Altaparmakov
@ 2002-04-20 18:13 ` Rik van Riel
2002-04-19 19:43 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 16:27 ` Richard Gooch
2 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Rik van Riel @ 2002-04-20 18:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Anton Altaparmakov, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> As always, what I do is in the interest of Linux and freedom.
Then why do you want to deny us the freedom to have a very
useful piece of documentation in the kernel tree ?
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 18:13 ` Rik van Riel
@ 2002-04-19 19:43 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 20:04 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 1:46 ` Rob Landley
0 siblings, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-19 19:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rik van Riel; +Cc: Anton Altaparmakov, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
On Saturday 20 April 2002 20:13, you wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> > As always, what I do is in the interest of Linux and freedom.
>
> Then why do you want to deny us the freedom to have a very
> useful piece of documentation in the kernel tree ?
If I objected to the inclusion of a piece of code licensed under Microsoft's
'shared source' license, whould you also say I was denying your freedom?
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 19:43 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-20 20:04 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 2:53 ` Ian Molton
2002-04-21 1:46 ` Rob Landley
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-20 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips
Cc: Rik van Riel, Anton Altaparmakov, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 09:43:48PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Saturday 20 April 2002 20:13, you wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >
> > > As always, what I do is in the interest of Linux and freedom.
> >
> > Then why do you want to deny us the freedom to have a very
> > useful piece of documentation in the kernel tree ?
>
> If I objected to the inclusion of a piece of code licensed under Microsoft's
> 'shared source' license, whould you also say I was denying your freedom?
You tried to -remove-, not include something. And, what you tried to
remove was under the GPL license, not any other license. So your
analogy doesn't hold.
You attempted to remove a GPL'd work from a GPL'd work, on the basis of
its content conflicting with your ideology.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 19:43 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 20:04 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-21 1:46 ` Rob Landley
2002-04-21 15:51 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Rob Landley @ 2002-04-21 1:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips, Rik van Riel; +Cc: Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Friday 19 April 2002 03:43 pm, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> If I objected to the inclusion of a piece of code licensed under
> Microsoft's 'shared source' license, whould you also say I was denying your
> freedom?
I'd say that in that case you'd have a legal basis for objecting: a license
conflict with a tarball full of GPL code.
is there a license on the distribution of the documentation in question that
presents a legal problem for it to be distributed together with GPL kernel
code?
Rob
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 1:46 ` Rob Landley
@ 2002-04-21 15:51 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 16:26 ` Tigran Aivazian
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-21 15:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rob Landley
Cc: Daniel Phillips, Rik van Riel, Anton Altaparmakov, linux-kernel
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 09:46:43PM -0400, Rob Landley wrote:
> is there a license on the distribution of the documentation in question that
> presents a legal problem for it to be distributed together with GPL kernel
> code?
No. The docs in question are covered by the GPL.
This is part of where I get the censorship jag. The doc _license_ is
GPL, so they are clearly complaining about my GPL'd speech describing
proprietary software. Fsck them, I will talk about proprietary software
as much as I like. And GPL that speech, as much as I like.
Implying (or flat out saying) that _talking_ about something proprietary
makes that speech proprietary is silly.
Daniel was trying to dictate what we can and cannot talk about, in the
kernel sources. That's offensive.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 15:51 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-21 16:26 ` Tigran Aivazian
2002-04-20 16:34 ` Daniel Phillips
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Tigran Aivazian @ 2002-04-21 16:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik; +Cc: Daniel Phillips, linux-kernel
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Daniel was trying to dictate what we can and cannot talk about, in the
> kernel sources. That's offensive.
>
> Jeff
Sorry, I resisted for two days but can't anymore...
Should I start by saying "You are all wrong" to match the style of your
signature? Just kidding, no offence, please.
The reason of my email is completely different. It's just after you said
the word "offensive" I remembered some tale whereby a sheep was trying to
argue with the wolves and the wolves were trying to pretend the sheep has
the same rights but after a while they got so annoyed that they told the
sheep "you are really rude and offensive" and ate it justifying it as
a "self-defence".
How can a sheep argue with the wolves (even if they themselves used to be
sheep not so long ago but now having become wolves are quite happy with
their position). There are two solutions: 1. for a sheep to be promoted
into the status of a wolf or 2. for a sheep to be eaten. Daniel, which one
seems more desirable?
Regards,
Tigran
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 16:26 ` Tigran Aivazian
@ 2002-04-20 16:34 ` Daniel Phillips
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-20 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tigran Aivazian, Jeff Garzik; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Sunday 21 April 2002 18:26, Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Daniel was trying to dictate what we can and cannot talk about, in the
> > kernel sources. That's offensive.
>
> The reason of my email is completely different. It's just after you said
> the word "offensive" I remembered some tale whereby a sheep was trying to
> argue with the wolves and the wolves were trying to pretend the sheep has
> the same rights but after a while they got so annoyed that they told the
> sheep "you are really rude and offensive" and ate it justifying it as
> a "self-defence".
>
> How can a sheep argue with the wolves (even if they themselves used to be
> sheep not so long ago but now having become wolves are quite happy with
> their position). There are two solutions: 1. for a sheep to be promoted
> into the status of a wolf or 2. for a sheep to be eaten. Daniel, which one
> seems more desirable?
Heh. Neither alternative is 'appetizing' ;-)
Following my personal dictates, I'll try not to become part of the problem.
I think I prefer to be a vegetarian wolf.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 16:21 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 16:51 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-04-20 18:13 ` Rik van Riel
@ 2002-04-21 16:27 ` Richard Gooch
2002-04-20 16:36 ` Daniel Phillips
2 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Richard Gooch @ 2002-04-21 16:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Anton Altaparmakov, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
Daniel Phillips writes:
> On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:13, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > Daniel,
> >
> > This is not documentation for bitkeeper but how to use bitkeeper
> > effectively for kernel development. It happens to be DAMN USEFULL
> > documentation at that for anyone wanting to use bitkeeper for kernel
> > development so IMO it fully belongs in the kernel. Just like the
> > SubmittingPatches document does, too. Or are you going to remove that as well?
>
> By that logic, we should also include the lkml FAQ in the kernel
> tree. Should we?
No. A pointer to the lkml FAQ is sufficient.
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 16:27 ` Richard Gooch
@ 2002-04-20 16:36 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 16:45 ` Richard Gooch
0 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-20 16:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Richard Gooch; +Cc: Anton Altaparmakov, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
On Sunday 21 April 2002 18:27, Richard Gooch wrote:
> Daniel Phillips writes:
> > On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:13, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > > Daniel,
> > >
> > > This is not documentation for bitkeeper but how to use bitkeeper
> > > effectively for kernel development. It happens to be DAMN USEFULL
> > > documentation at that for anyone wanting to use bitkeeper for kernel
> > > development so IMO it fully belongs in the kernel. Just like the
> > > SubmittingPatches document does, too. Or are you going to remove that as well?
> >
> > By that logic, we should also include the lkml FAQ in the kernel
> > tree. Should we?
>
> No. A pointer to the lkml FAQ is sufficient.
Was that a hint? Then certainly, a pointer to the BK documentation would be
sufficient, and save download bandwidth as well.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 16:36 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-21 16:45 ` Richard Gooch
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Richard Gooch @ 2002-04-21 16:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Anton Altaparmakov, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
Daniel Phillips writes:
> On Sunday 21 April 2002 18:27, Richard Gooch wrote:
> > Daniel Phillips writes:
> > > On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:13, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > > > Daniel,
> > > >
> > > > This is not documentation for bitkeeper but how to use bitkeeper
> > > > effectively for kernel development. It happens to be DAMN USEFULL
> > > > documentation at that for anyone wanting to use bitkeeper for kernel
> > > > development so IMO it fully belongs in the kernel. Just like the
> > > > SubmittingPatches document does, too. Or are you going to remove that as well?
> > >
> > > By that logic, we should also include the lkml FAQ in the kernel
> > > tree. Should we?
> >
> > No. A pointer to the lkml FAQ is sufficient.
>
> Was that a hint?
Not really. I'm just answering your question about whether the lkml
FAQ should be distributed with the kernel sources. As far as I know,
there is a pointer, but I haven't looked. If there isn't feel free to
send Linus and Marcelo a patch.
> Then certainly, a pointer to the BK documentation would be
> sufficient, and save download bandwidth as well.
I wasn't talking about that. And I won't O:-) But I wonder if I added
something to the lkml FAQ whether we might avoid some rounds of this
repeat flamewar?
Nah.
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current: rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 15:12 Daniel Phillips
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2002-04-20 16:13 ` Anton Altaparmakov
@ 2002-04-20 17:41 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-19 18:07 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 17:53 ` Eric W. Biederman
4 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2002-04-20 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
Oh, my. A couple of thoughts:
a) if it would ease the incredible silent (?) seething anguish of Daniel and
others, I'd be happy to post a copy of Jeff's docs on the bitkeeper.com
website someplace and you could replace the patch with a pointer to that.
Seems silly but if it makes the uproar go away...
b) To all of the "silently seething" folks, build a better answer for
free and the kernel team will switch in a heartbeat. How about you
think of BitKeeper as a stepping stone, a temporary thing until a
better answer appears? It doesn't even have to be better, just good
enough.
We built BK to make the key people more efficient. To some extent, it
is doing that. We'll keep trying to make it help make those people more
efficient. That's *good* for the kernel. Which was always the goal.
I'm terribly sorry that this product space doesn't generate enough
consulting business that it can support itself in a politically correct
way, but it doesn't. Get over it. You either get crap tools or you get
tools that have a business model. In this space, the GPL doesn't work,
you need some other way to pay for the work.
If you don't agree, by all means, feel free to *prove* me wrong by
designing, implementing, and supporting a better (or as good)
answer. That is what Linus has said, and I agree, and the "silently
seething" folks need to either put up or go back to being silent.
A thing to keep in mind is that there are a large number of talkers,
people who spend their time flaming but very little of their time writing
useful code. Those people seem to have the most time to argue about
licenses. There are other people who spend their time writing code,
useful code. The goal is to help the second, smaller, group.
BitKeeper seems to make that second group more productive. And it happily
allows for the license haters to keep on working the way they used to,
at the same speed as they used to. Daniel raised the point that BK has
created the "ins" and the "outs". That's not quite right, it's a question
of "efficient" versus "not quite so efficient". Yeah, it has the effect
of creating an "in" group, but that is because it is easier to work that
way, not because of any evil plan to take over the world with BK.
To repeat: if http://www.bitkeeper.com/kernel-howto.html or something
like that makes you happier, I'll do that immediately.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 17:41 ` Larry McVoy
@ 2002-04-19 18:07 ` Daniel Phillips
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-19 18:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
On Saturday 20 April 2002 19:41, Larry McVoy wrote:
> Oh, my. A couple of thoughts:
>
> a) if it would ease the incredible silent (?) seething anguish of Daniel and
> others, I'd be happy to post a copy of Jeff's docs on the bitkeeper.com
> website someplace and you could replace the patch with a pointer to that.
> Seems silly but if it makes the uproar go away...
>
> b) To all of the "silently seething" folks, build a better answer for
> free and the kernel team will switch in a heartbeat. How about you
> think of BitKeeper as a stepping stone, a temporary thing until a
> better answer appears? It doesn't even have to be better, just good
> enough.
There ya go, now this is reasonable. Personally, I do not want to step on
your stones.
> We built BK to make the key people more efficient. To some extent, it
> is doing that. We'll keep trying to make it help make those people more
> efficient. That's *good* for the kernel. Which was always the goal.
Yes, but not *entirely* good, because it is driving some developers into
isolation, or at the best, quiet resentment. This does not qualify as 'best
for the kernel'. A slight dose of moderation here would strike that happy
medium that seems to be slipping away. No, not you, Larry, this is one of
your moderate moments, I think I am going to bronze this email.
> I'm terribly sorry that this product space doesn't generate enough
> consulting business that it can support itself in a politically correct
> way, but it doesn't. Get over it. You either get crap tools or you get
> tools that have a business model. In this space, the GPL doesn't work,
> you need some other way to pay for the work.
Um, no Larry, but that is something we can discuss at our leisure.
Executive summary: life does not consist of business models alone. Much
great art has nothing to do with business models. Oh for sure, some
artists are fine businessmen but it's rare. Usually they just get by,
enough to satisfy their immediate needs and produce immortal works for
your - our - pleasure. Indeed, there is more to life that business models.
> If you don't agree, by all means, feel free to *prove* me wrong by
> designing, implementing, and supporting a better (or as good)
> answer. That is what Linus has said, and I agree, and the "silently
> seething" folks need to either put up or go back to being silent.
You don't *really* want me to do that. I thought you had a business model.
Surely it does not consist of 'goad the open source community into replacing
my product with a better, free one, so I can retire in poverty'.
> BitKeeper seems to make that second group more productive. And it happily
> allows for the license haters to keep on working the way they used to,
> at the same speed as they used to. Daniel raised the point that BK has
> created the "ins" and the "outs". That's not quite right, it's a question
> of "efficient" versus "not quite so efficient". Yeah, it has the effect
> of creating an "in" group, but that is because it is easier to work that
> way, not because of any evil plan to take over the world with BK.
>
> To repeat: if http://www.bitkeeper.com/kernel-howto.html or something
> like that makes you happier, I'll do that immediately.
It would be most excellent, and you will get a case of good Berlin lager
out of it. Err, maybe life is about business after all...
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 15:12 Daniel Phillips
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2002-04-20 17:41 ` Larry McVoy
@ 2002-04-20 17:53 ` Eric W. Biederman
2002-04-19 18:15 ` Daniel Phillips
4 siblings, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Eric W. Biederman @ 2002-04-20 17:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net> writes:
> Hi Linus,
>
> I have up to this point been open to the use of Bitkeeper as a development
> aid for Linux, and, again up to this point, have intended to make use of
> Bitkeeper myself, taking a pragmatic attitude towards the concept of using
> the best tool for the job. However, now I see that Bitkeeper documentation
> has quietly been inserted ino the Linux Documentation directory, and that
> without any apparent discussion on lkml. I fear that this demonstrates that
> those who have called the use of Bitkeeper a slippery slope do have a point
> after all.
Daniel I agree that there are some real dangers to using a proprietary
tool, and have seen it severely affect a project.
The primary problem is that some developers are not able to
participate because they do not have the tool.
Given that bitkeeper is currently freely available, and that people
can still send raw patches I do not see that people are currently
being excluded on basis of the tool they use.
I can see the potential for this to break down. However we should
not be crying wolf until this actually does break down.
There is exactly one point where religious attitudes are important.
Because of them some people will not use a non-free tool. So for a
wide spread project there must be some way for them to participate.
diffs are still being accepted, so these people do have a to
participate.
Eric
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 17:53 ` Eric W. Biederman
@ 2002-04-19 18:15 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 18:44 ` Eric W. Biederman
2002-04-20 18:48 ` Russell King
0 siblings, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-19 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric W. Biederman; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
All of what you said, 100% agreed, and insightful, in particular:
On Saturday 20 April 2002 19:53, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> I can see the potential for this to break down. However we should
> not be crying wolf until this actually does break down.
Do we want it to break down first? I don't want that.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 18:15 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-20 18:44 ` Eric W. Biederman
2002-04-19 19:22 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 18:48 ` Russell King
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Eric W. Biederman @ 2002-04-20 18:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net> writes:
> All of what you said, 100% agreed, and insightful, in particular:
>
> On Saturday 20 April 2002 19:53, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > I can see the potential for this to break down. However we should
> > not be crying wolf until this actually does break down.
>
> Do we want it to break down first? I don't want that.
The price of freedom is continual vigilance.
So when confronted by changes in practice that we aren't sure about
the appropriate procedure is to ask (publicly?). If this is keeping
developers from participating. Or if it is placing a significant
barrier in the way of developers. If we start the conversation
without condemnation of change, we won't be crying wolf. Only asking
is that a wolf?
Addressing the filter is doing X fun. For me working with near-free
tools is not fun, because I must always be aware of the difference. I
am never quite certain where I stand with the tool vendor. The tool
is not free obviously because money making opportunities are more
important than my ability to use and modify the tool.
At the same time constant vigilance even of free software is required.
A non-free tool that does a sufficiently good job that I don't feel
like fixing it, is usable. It simply becomes a minor background
irritant that I can ignore.
Linus working more efficiently so he can accept more patches is
obviously more fun :)
Eric
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-19 18:15 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 18:44 ` Eric W. Biederman
@ 2002-04-20 18:48 ` Russell King
2002-04-19 19:19 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 2:57 ` Ian Molton
1 sibling, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Russell King @ 2002-04-20 18:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Phillips; +Cc: Eric W. Biederman, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 08:15:14PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> All of what you said, 100% agreed, and insightful, in particular:
>
> On Saturday 20 April 2002 19:53, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > I can see the potential for this to break down. However we should
> > not be crying wolf until this actually does break down.
>
> Do we want it to break down first? I don't want that.
Actually, you yourself have probably sewn the first seeds of the community
breaking down. Lets take a moment to put some thought in at this point
and review what's happened today.
1. The Current Situation
- Linus uses BK
- Linus makes his BK tree available.
- Linus makes GNU patches available.
- Linus accepts requests to pull from BK trees.
- Linus accepts GNU patches to apply to his BK tree.
2. The effect of today
- You've highlighted a problem
- David Woodhouse and Rik van Riel have written a tool to grab Linus'
BK tree and turn it into a patch on a per-hourly basis
Now look back at Linus' actions above. There is now redundancy. Linus
doesn't have to put out GNU patches anymore because someone else is
doing that for him... which means Linus works more efficiently.
So it's highly likely that in the future, we'll have:
- Linus uses BK
- Linus makes his BK tree available
- Linus accepts requests to pull from BK trees.
- Linus accepts GNU patches to apply to his BK tree.
- "Select few" pull his BK tree and create GNU patches for others
to use.
Oops. We've just split the community further, which is *completely* the
opposite of what you wanted to achieve. I wonder what the next stage
will be...
Like I said to you on IRC before you posted the message - you want
to fix the problem at the root (ie, Linus) rather than your apparant
problem with the "two communities." And how do you do that? You
discuss it with the person concerned. (And you can see the results
of that discussion earlier in this thread.)
This way, those that want to use "a distributed source control system
of some type" can do so, and those that want to use the GNU patch/diff
method can also continue to, but with The Latest Tree available.
Which has got to be an advantage for *everyone*.
I'm sorry, I have no cares for people who have been constantly whinging
at the users of BK who don't go out of their way to find out where the
real problem is and attempt to fix that, rather than harp on about how
other people shouldn't be using a non-free tool.
Oh, and before anyone says that I'm another one who uses BK, yes I do
use BK, but only as a method of getting ARM specific changes into Linus.
Any generic kernel changes I have still go to linux-kernel, Linus and
any relevant other people as a GNU patch. The first time these patches
see BK is when they hit Linus' BK tree. They don't come from BK either.
I, therefore, can claim to work in both domains in parallel.
But no, in your eyes, I'm just another stupid BK person who's contributing
to the downfall of Linux, and is in the "in" club.
--
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 18:48 ` Russell King
@ 2002-04-19 19:19 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 2:57 ` Ian Molton
1 sibling, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-19 19:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Russell King; +Cc: Eric W. Biederman, Linus Torvalds, linux-kernel
On Saturday 20 April 2002 20:48, Russell King wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 08:15:14PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > All of what you said, 100% agreed, and insightful, in particular:
> >
> > On Saturday 20 April 2002 19:53, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > I can see the potential for this to break down. However we should
> > > not be crying wolf until this actually does break down.
> >
> > Do we want it to break down first? I don't want that.
>
> Actually, you yourself have probably sewn the first seeds of the community
> breaking down. Lets take a moment to put some thought in at this point
> and review what's happened today.
>
> 1. The Current Situation
>
> - Linus uses BK
> - Linus makes his BK tree available.
> - Linus makes GNU patches available.
> - Linus accepts requests to pull from BK trees.
> - Linus accepts GNU patches to apply to his BK tree.
>
> 2. The effect of today
>
> - You've highlighted a problem
> - David Woodhouse and Rik van Riel have written a tool to grab Linus'
> BK tree and turn it into a patch on a per-hourly basis
>
> Now look back at Linus' actions above. There is now redundancy. Linus
> doesn't have to put out GNU patches anymore because someone else is
> doing that for him... which means Linus works more efficiently.
>
> So it's highly likely that in the future, we'll have:
>
> - Linus uses BK
> - Linus makes his BK tree available
> - Linus accepts requests to pull from BK trees.
> - Linus accepts GNU patches to apply to his BK tree.
> - "Select few" pull his BK tree and create GNU patches for others
> to use.
Use for what? I'm not clear on this concept.
> Oops. We've just split the community further, which is *completely* the
> opposite of what you wanted to achieve. I wonder what the next stage
> will be...
Now you're crying wolf. Since when has developing and trying out tools
been bad?
> Like I said to you on IRC before you posted the message - you want
> to fix the problem at the root (ie, Linus) rather than your apparant
> problem with the "two communities." And how do you do that? You
> discuss it with the person concerned. (And you can see the results
> of that discussion earlier in this thread.)
Sorry, the only way I know of debating is in public. Perhaps I can
learn another way, but I'm not sure I want to.
> This way, those that want to use "a distributed source control system
> of some type" can do so, and those that want to use the GNU patch/diff
> method can also continue to, but with The Latest Tree available.
> Which has got to be an advantage for *everyone*.
>
> I'm sorry, I have no cares for people who have been constantly whinging
> at the users of BK who don't go out of their way to find out where the
> real problem is and attempt to fix that, rather than harp on about how
> other people shouldn't be using a non-free tool.
Please show me where I said anyone should not use Bitkeeper.
> Oh, and before anyone says that I'm another one who uses BK, yes I do
> use BK, but only as a method of getting ARM specific changes into Linus.
> Any generic kernel changes I have still go to linux-kernel, Linus and
> any relevant other people as a GNU patch. The first time these patches
> see BK is when they hit Linus' BK tree. They don't come from BK either.
>
> I, therefore, can claim to work in both domains in parallel.
>
> But no, in your eyes, I'm just another stupid BK person who's contributing
> to the downfall of Linux, and is in the "in" club.
Not at all, you're just the ARM guy. <- funny, laugh
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-20 18:48 ` Russell King
2002-04-19 19:19 ` Daniel Phillips
@ 2002-04-21 2:57 ` Ian Molton
2002-04-21 2:56 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2002-04-21 15:35 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Ian Molton @ 2002-04-21 2:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Russell King; +Cc: phillips, ebiederm, torvalds, linux-kernel
Russell King Awoke this dragon, who will now respond:
> But no, in your eyes, I'm just another stupid BK person who's
> contributing to the downfall of Linux, and is in the "in" club.
I dont think Daniel claimed BK was contributing to linux downfall.
He said that having proprietary stuff in the kernel was a bad idea.
We dont allow proprietary modules in the kernel, why should docs be any
different?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 2:57 ` Ian Molton
@ 2002-04-21 2:56 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2002-04-21 3:46 ` Ian Molton
2002-04-21 9:28 ` Jochen Friedrich
2002-04-21 15:35 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2002-04-21 2:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Molton; +Cc: Russell King, phillips, ebiederm, torvalds, linux-kernel
Em Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 03:57:59AM +0100, Ian Molton escreveu:
> Russell King Awoke this dragon, who will now respond:
> > But no, in your eyes, I'm just another stupid BK person who's
> > contributing to the downfall of Linux, and is in the "in" club.
>
> I dont think Daniel claimed BK was contributing to linux downfall.
>
> He said that having proprietary stuff in the kernel was a bad idea.
>
> We dont allow proprietary modules in the kernel, why should docs be any
> different?
The documentation being discussed is not proprietary, it only talks about a non
essential proprietary tool used now by lots of kernel hackers.
- Arnaldo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 2:56 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
@ 2002-04-21 3:46 ` Ian Molton
2002-04-21 3:43 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2002-04-21 15:36 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 9:28 ` Jochen Friedrich
1 sibling, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Ian Molton @ 2002-04-21 3:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo; +Cc: rmk, phillips, ebiederm, torvalds, linux-kernel
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Awoke this dragon, who will now respond:
> The documentation being discussed is not proprietary, it only talks about
> a non essential proprietary tool used now by lots of kernel hackers.
well, this raises an interesting point...
should documentation be regarded as part of the package it documents or
not?
is this 'bitkeeper documentation', 'documentation about bitkeeper', or
'linux kernel documentation', or what?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 3:46 ` Ian Molton
@ 2002-04-21 3:43 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2002-04-21 15:36 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2002-04-21 3:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Molton; +Cc: rmk, phillips, ebiederm, linux-kernel
Em Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 04:46:16AM +0100, Ian Molton escreveu:
> Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Awoke this dragon, who will now respond:
>
> > The documentation being discussed is not proprietary, it only talks about
> > a non essential proprietary tool used now by lots of kernel hackers.
>
> well, this raises an interesting point...
>
> should documentation be regarded as part of the package it documents or
> not?
yes, and this is the case :)
> is this 'bitkeeper documentation', 'documentation about bitkeeper', or
> 'linux kernel documentation', or what?
This is "how to use bitkeeper with the Linux kernel sources and to submit
patches to Linus", AFAIK...
As pointed out by Linus, in the jfs subtree there is similar docs, but using
CVS instead.
Ah, removing Linus from the CC list as he is not interested in this thread
at all :)
- Arnaldo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 3:46 ` Ian Molton
2002-04-21 3:43 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
@ 2002-04-21 15:36 ` Jeff Garzik
1 sibling, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-21 15:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Molton
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, rmk, phillips, ebiederm, torvalds,
linux-kernel
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 04:46:16AM +0100, Ian Molton wrote:
> Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo Awoke this dragon, who will now respond:
>
> > The documentation being discussed is not proprietary, it only talks about
> > a non essential proprietary tool used now by lots of kernel hackers.
>
> well, this raises an interesting point...
>
> should documentation be regarded as part of the package it documents or
> not?
No, it doesn't raise this point. Documentation is licensed either
separately, or with the package containing it. As it is here.
There is no "should it be regarded" questions.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 2:56 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2002-04-21 3:46 ` Ian Molton
@ 2002-04-21 9:28 ` Jochen Friedrich
2002-04-21 15:53 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2002-04-21 18:11 ` John Alvord
1 sibling, 2 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jochen Friedrich @ 2002-04-21 9:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
Cc: Ian Molton, Russell King, phillips, ebiederm, torvalds,
linux-kernel
Hi,
> > We dont allow proprietary modules in the kernel, why should docs be any
> > different?
>
> The documentation being discussed is not proprietary, it only talks about a non
> essential proprietary tool used now by lots of kernel hackers.
So would Linus accept a document on how to run Linux/390 on hercules (yet
another proprietary emulator)? This also was a FAQ on the linux-390
mailing list until the documentation is available on the hercules home
page...
Developing kernel stuff on 390 without emulator can be much fun as host
operators tend to get very pissed if the IPL ratio comes near to 1/min ;-)
--jochen
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 9:28 ` Jochen Friedrich
@ 2002-04-21 15:53 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2002-04-21 18:11 ` John Alvord
1 sibling, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2002-04-21 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jochen Friedrich
Cc: Ian Molton, Russell King, phillips, ebiederm, linux-kernel
Em Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 11:28:36AM +0200, Jochen Friedrich escreveu:
> > > We dont allow proprietary modules in the kernel, why should docs be any
> > > different?
> >
> > The documentation being discussed is not proprietary, it only talks about a non
> > essential proprietary tool used now by lots of kernel hackers.
>
> So would Linus accept a document on how to run Linux/390 on hercules (yet
> another proprietary emulator)? This also was a FAQ on the linux-390
Don't know, tried to submit?
Just checked, Hercules is not a proprietary emulator, in fact it is licensed
under the QPL. http://www.conmicro.cx/hercules/herclic.html
> mailing list until the documentation is available on the hercules home
> page...
> Developing kernel stuff on 390 without emulator can be much fun as host
> operators tend to get very pissed if the IPL ratio comes near to 1/min ;-)
<joke>
Another good question: does Linus cares about Linux S/390? ;)
</joke>
- Arnaldo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 9:28 ` Jochen Friedrich
2002-04-21 15:53 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
@ 2002-04-21 18:11 ` John Alvord
2002-04-21 18:15 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: John Alvord @ 2002-04-21 18:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jochen Friedrich
Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo, Ian Molton, Russell King, phillips,
ebiederm, torvalds, linux-kernel
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > We dont allow proprietary modules in the kernel, why should docs be any
> > > different?
> >
> > The documentation being discussed is not proprietary, it only talks about a non
> > essential proprietary tool used now by lots of kernel hackers.
>
> So would Linus accept a document on how to run Linux/390 on hercules (yet
> another proprietary emulator)? This also was a FAQ on the linux-390
> mailing list until the documentation is available on the hercules home
> page...
<Puzzled> I thought hercules was an open source project... There are some
prioriatery 390 emulators (UMX, Flex) but not hercules.
>
> Developing kernel stuff on 390 without emulator can be much fun as host
> operators tend to get very pissed if the IPL ratio comes near to 1/min ;-)
>
> --jochen
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 18:11 ` John Alvord
@ 2002-04-21 18:15 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo @ 2002-04-21 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Alvord
Cc: Jochen Friedrich, Ian Molton, Russell King, phillips, ebiederm,
torvalds, linux-kernel
Em Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 11:11:52AM -0700, John Alvord escreveu:
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2002, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> > > > We dont allow proprietary modules in the kernel, why should docs be any
> > > > different?
> > >
> > > The documentation being discussed is not proprietary, it only talks about a non
> > > essential proprietary tool used now by lots of kernel hackers.
> >
> > So would Linus accept a document on how to run Linux/390 on hercules (yet
> > another proprietary emulator)? This also was a FAQ on the linux-390
> > mailing list until the documentation is available on the hercules home
> > page...
> <Puzzled> I thought hercules was an open source project... There are some
> prioriatery 390 emulators (UMX, Flex) but not hercules.
As I said, its QPLed, so non-proprietary but subject to flamefest, but lets
stick (not me, thanks) to the regular bk ones ;)
- Arnaldo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 2:57 ` Ian Molton
2002-04-21 2:56 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
@ 2002-04-21 15:35 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 17:09 ` Daniel Phillips
1 sibling, 1 reply; 186+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Garzik @ 2002-04-21 15:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ian Molton; +Cc: Russell King, phillips, ebiederm, torvalds, linux-kernel
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 03:57:59AM +0100, Ian Molton wrote:
> Russell King Awoke this dragon, who will now respond:
>
> > But no, in your eyes, I'm just another stupid BK person who's
> > contributing to the downfall of Linux, and is in the "in" club.
>
> I dont think Daniel claimed BK was contributing to linux downfall.
Sure he did.
> He said that having proprietary stuff in the kernel was a bad idea.
>
> We dont allow proprietary modules in the kernel, why should docs be any
> different?
The docs are not proprietary.
Jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
2002-04-21 15:35 ` Jeff Garzik
@ 2002-04-20 17:09 ` Daniel Phillips
0 siblings, 0 replies; 186+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Phillips @ 2002-04-20 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Garzik, linux-kernel
On Sunday 21 April 2002 17:35, you wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 03:57:59AM +0100, Ian Molton wrote:
> > Russell King Awoke this dragon, who will now respond:
> >
> > > But no, in your eyes, I'm just another stupid BK person who's
> > > contributing to the downfall of Linux, and is in the "in" club.
> >
> > I dont think Daniel claimed BK was contributing to linux downfall.
>
> Sure he did.
Would you please show me where? At most you'll find a warning we should
be vigilant, that we should be thinking about how to improve the level of
discussion of important patches.
Private patch streams containing important work have always tended to
dissipate the essential strength of the community, in my opinion.
Bitkeeper just makes it easier. That is far from suggesting Linux is
teetering on the brink.
--
Daniel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 186+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-04-26 22:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 186+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20020421101731.D10525@work.bitmover.com>
2002-04-21 17:22 ` [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 17:48 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 17:55 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 18:07 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 18:13 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 18:15 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 18:26 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 18:40 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 18:21 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-20 18:29 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 18:36 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-20 18:46 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 19:07 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-21 14:39 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 18:38 ` yodaiken
2002-04-21 18:08 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-20 18:15 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 19:06 ` dean gaudet
2002-04-21 14:53 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22 17:03 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 17:27 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22 17:30 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-21 17:47 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22 17:40 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 17:57 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22 20:47 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 20:54 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22 22:04 ` Davide Libenzi
2002-04-22 22:17 ` There is no cabal (was: the BK flamewar) Jeff Garzik
2002-04-22 23:22 ` Davide Libenzi
2002-04-22 23:27 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-22 20:37 ` double-standard? (Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree) dean gaudet
2002-04-21 20:49 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 20:22 ` [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree Andrew Morton
2002-04-22 0:01 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-22 20:32 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-22 18:37 Jonathan A. George
2002-04-22 18:58 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-22 19:19 ` Jonathan A. George
2002-04-22 19:51 ` Alexander Viro
2002-04-22 19:56 ` Jonathan A. George
2002-04-22 20:13 ` Alexander Viro
2002-04-22 19:52 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-22 21:53 ` Jonathan A. George
2002-04-22 19:47 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-04-22 19:54 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-22 21:13 ` Rik van Riel
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-04-19 15:12 Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 15:52 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 16:16 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-20 16:25 ` David Lang
2002-04-20 17:05 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-20 17:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-20 16:25 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-19 16:33 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 16:56 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-19 17:17 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 17:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-20 17:38 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-04-21 2:26 ` Ian Molton
2002-04-20 17:19 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-20 21:03 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 21:36 ` Skip Ford
2002-04-20 21:40 ` Rik van Riel
2002-04-20 23:14 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-20 21:53 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 0:04 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-21 0:17 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-21 9:22 ` Jochen Friedrich
2002-04-21 10:05 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-04-21 10:17 ` Thunder from the hill
2002-04-21 11:10 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-04-21 16:46 ` Jochen Friedrich
2002-04-21 17:00 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-21 17:05 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-04-21 17:14 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-21 13:18 ` Rik van Riel
2002-04-21 13:41 ` yodaiken
2002-04-21 16:50 ` Jochen Friedrich
2002-04-21 17:18 ` yodaiken
2002-04-21 15:17 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 16:32 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 16:46 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 16:57 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 17:11 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22 12:06 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-22 16:39 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-23 13:49 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-23 14:51 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-22 15:29 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-23 17:00 ` Rik van Riel
2002-04-23 18:12 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-23 15:13 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-23 15:17 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-23 15:35 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-23 15:37 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-23 16:04 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-23 17:01 ` Rik van Riel
2002-04-23 17:06 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-23 15:05 ` Rik van Riel
2002-04-23 15:27 ` Roman Zippel
2002-04-21 2:30 ` Ian Molton
2002-04-21 15:33 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 15:46 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 15:59 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 23:36 ` Ian Molton
2002-04-26 21:58 ` Rik van Riel
2002-04-20 16:37 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-19 16:45 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 16:54 ` Alexander Viro
2002-04-21 2:36 ` Ian Molton
2002-04-20 15:54 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 16:29 ` Nils Philippsen
2002-04-20 16:56 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 2:38 ` Ian Molton
2002-04-20 16:13 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-04-19 16:21 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 16:51 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-04-19 17:05 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 17:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-19 17:32 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 17:51 ` Linus Torvalds
2002-04-19 21:02 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 21:07 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-19 22:01 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 22:20 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-19 22:34 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 22:54 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 1:41 ` Rob Landley
2002-04-20 15:44 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 15:52 ` Rob Landley
2002-04-21 15:59 ` Russell King
2002-04-20 16:10 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 16:15 ` Russell King
2002-04-21 16:15 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 16:02 ` arjan
2002-04-20 22:30 ` Stelian Pop
2002-04-21 2:46 ` Ian Molton
2002-04-20 22:37 ` Russell King
2002-04-20 23:15 ` Kenneth Johansson
2002-04-20 17:05 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 17:15 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 1:38 ` Oliver Xymoron
2002-04-21 15:32 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 22:00 ` Stevie O
2002-04-20 22:14 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-04-21 2:48 ` Ian Molton
2002-04-20 22:31 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 17:51 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-19 18:27 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 17:51 ` Rob Landley
2002-04-20 18:41 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 17:15 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 17:19 ` Dave Jones
2002-04-20 17:58 ` Eric W. Biederman
2002-04-20 18:35 ` Anton Altaparmakov
2002-04-20 18:13 ` Rik van Riel
2002-04-19 19:43 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 20:04 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 2:53 ` Ian Molton
2002-04-21 1:46 ` Rob Landley
2002-04-21 15:51 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 16:26 ` Tigran Aivazian
2002-04-20 16:34 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 16:27 ` Richard Gooch
2002-04-20 16:36 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 16:45 ` Richard Gooch
2002-04-20 17:41 ` Larry McVoy
2002-04-19 18:07 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 17:53 ` Eric W. Biederman
2002-04-19 18:15 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 18:44 ` Eric W. Biederman
2002-04-19 19:22 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20 18:48 ` Russell King
2002-04-19 19:19 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21 2:57 ` Ian Molton
2002-04-21 2:56 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2002-04-21 3:46 ` Ian Molton
2002-04-21 3:43 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2002-04-21 15:36 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-21 9:28 ` Jochen Friedrich
2002-04-21 15:53 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2002-04-21 18:11 ` John Alvord
2002-04-21 18:15 ` Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo
2002-04-21 15:35 ` Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20 17:09 ` Daniel Phillips
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox