Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

Richard Gooch
2002-04-21T16:45:22Z

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