Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

Jeff Garzik
2002-04-20T21:07:49Z

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