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

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

On Monday 22 April 2002 22:53, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 10:29:19PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On Monday 22 April 2002 21:53, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 07:34:49PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > > How about a URL instead? Any objection?
> > >
> > > Yes. Why should I have to cut and paste (assuming I'm in X) or
> > > write down
> >
> > What??? What kind of system are you running? Err... redhat supports
> > cut and paste I thought. <-- funnny.
>
> Depends on what you use to read the file containing the URL. Obviously,
> if I'm Al Viro I'm on a text console and wouldn't use a mouse if you
> cemented it in my hand, so cut and paste isn't an option.

Would everybody with no mouse on their system please stand up, and leave
the room.

Seriously, you're trolling.

> > > and transpose some URL from a file that used to contain
> > > the exact instructions I need in order to get those instructions now
> >
> > Bogus. You'd have to do the same to edit/list the file.
>
> No, I wouldn't. In one case I would do "less <filename>" and in the other
> case I would do "less <filename>", ohh damn, it's only a pointer to the
> real docs, switch to X or install lynx on my system, go to URL. It's a
> matter of having the appropriate documentation at hand vs. having to
> retrieve it.

lynx <url>

What's the difference?

> I put my docs on my web site because that's what I owned/controlled and it
> was relevant to people already coming to my web site. That in no way
> indicates that your position is correct, especially since you ignored to
> truly relevant item in my email:

I'm actually trying to do a little work as well as handle all the input
from the Bitkeeper moonies, thankyou.

Err, did I say moonies, sorry I meant advocates, err, apologists, umm.
Sorry, I just meant I've been getting a lot of email lately, some of it
is too long to read every word. Unless you are a spectacularly good
writer, expect some of your deathless prose to drop through the cracks.

> > > information so that the whole picture, from start to finish, was all
> > > described in one easy to access place.
>
> One place for relevant information, from start to finish.

Right. bitkeeper.com, any argument?

> > You haven't read the thread closely, this was described before. There are
> > one documentation file and three scripts. The documentation file is about
> > half general description of Bitkeeper - which is quite unabashedly
> > promotional and the author does describe it as an adverisement - and half
> > how to use for submitting kernel patches.
>
> Now, now Daniel, let's not put words into people's mouths. Jeff has said
> he does like BitKeeper, and he said he could *see how you think his
> description is an advertisement* but that he *didn't write it as an
> advertisement*.

He agreed it was an advertisement.

--
Daniel