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

Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22T17:17:22Z

On Monday 22 April 2002 19:10, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 05:50:25PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On Monday 22 April 2002 17:44, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 02:53:13PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > > I hope I made it clear that I believe BK is helping Linux. Furthermore, I
> > > > don't see why Larry should not collect some advertising for his contribution.
> > > > Within limits. IMHO, we're on the wrong side of the limit at the moment,
> > > > and moving further with no sign of moderating.
> > >
> > > Yes, because so many purchasing managers spend their time reading the
> > > Documentation subdirectory of the Linux kernel in order to decide what
> > > SCM system they should use.
> > >
> > > The existence (or non-existence) of the docs has absolutely no marketing
> > > value to BK.
> >
> > So you have no problem with moving them to a website, leaving a url in
> > SubmittingPatches?
>
> Do you have a problem with moving other docs out to Websites, which are
> describing closed-spec hardware? Such hardware (and their vendors) are
> actively anti-open source, yet we have documents describing those, too.

The other example specifically mentioned was the CVS documentation for jfs,
and yes, I think that moving those instructions to the web site in question
would make a lot of sense, leaving a URL wherever the docs once were. By
definition, the CVS instructions will be available on that site as long as
they are useful, and not a moment longer.

This is all irrespective of the fact that CVS does not have the problem of
having a restrictive license, but since you asked...

--
Daniel