Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

Daniel Phillips
2002-04-20T16:44:58Z

On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:37, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > Take your closed mind elsewhere. I'm pretty sure Linus has more sense
> > than to apply this patch.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> Like it or not, I personally use BK. I don't use CVS, and I don't use
> subversion.
>
> If anybody wants to maintain his own kernel, feel free to remove the
> documentation on how to interact with _me_. In such a kernel, those docs
> would obviously be meaningless.
>
> In fact, Daniel, if you had bothered to just even grep for CVS, you would
> have noticed that we've had CVS information for some other subprojects
> too, because _they_ happen to use CVS. Would you argue for removal of the
> CVS information in Documentation/filesystems/jfs.txt file?
>
> And if not, then you're a hypocritical bastard with a religious agenda.

Err, and if I to argue for it then I'm not? That's easy I argue for it.
Do you think the jfs team will object?

Anyway, that was not serious, I will not argue for the removal of
information on how to use CVS, and gpl'd tool, from the tree. Even though
I think the tree would be better off without it. This is not an issue.
A steady slide toward proprietary tools and behind-the-scenes development
in cathedral-style is an issue. This is not the Linux I knew, or thought
I knew, it is more like FreeBSD.

--
Daniel