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

Petr Vandrovec
2002-04-22T17:45:43Z

On 21 Apr 02 at 19:34, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> True, but I'm a contributor and so I have an interest in it. It would be
> better if you didn't pursue that line of argument.
>
> How about the URL?

Why we have kernel tarball at all, then? Just put URLs where you can
download different pieces of kernel, and we are done. You finally
solved problem how to help users who do not want to download different
arch subdirectories, or different drivers, as they do not need them
for their hardware, and downloading them takes a precious time.

As there is definitely at least one developer who uses Bitkeeper, and
as this information is seen useful at least by some people (me including),
I see no reason why this information should not be part of kernel.

Otherwise we must remove ncpfs and matroxfb from the kernel immediately, as
they both use proprietary protocol/interface, and there is available only
one vendor on the world who provides/supports this protocol/interface
(Novell resp. Matrox), and matroxfb documentation is just hidden advertising
of Matrox corp.
Best regards,
Petr Vandrovec
vandrove@vc.cvut.cz