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

Daniel Phillips
2002-04-22T18:47:43Z

On Monday 22 April 2002 20:29, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> >Please don't assign me membership in any anti-bitkeeper crew. I am not
> >anti-BitKeeper. If you must have an epithet, try
> >"anti-advertising-in-the-tree"
> >crew.
>
> Oh I wasn't refering just to you.

Don't refer to me at all in that context, thankyou.

> I was refering to the "silently seething"
> kernel hackers you mentioned but refused to name...

Indeed. Please get a clue a read the thread. Sheesh. No, I'm still not going
to name anybody, figure it out yourself.

> > > then moving the
> > > document out won't either, so moving it out would be a waste of time in
> > > addition to penalizing people who want to use bitkeeper, which is unfair
> > > and incorrect.
> >
> >Changing the documents for a url penalizes you exactly how?
>
> You obviously didn't read my mail properly. )-:
>
> It is an inconvenience having to go lookup some website instead of having
> the doc right there.

Good thing you've got a computer to look it up for you then, isn't it.
(moral of this, don't say really stupid things if you don't want an even
stupider reply).

> What part of that do you not understand?

I don't understand the part where you find clicking a url difficult. Please
tell me it ain't so.

> Perhaps you
> have a 24x7 internet connection, many people don't. Perhaps this is a
> surpise to you?

OK, let me get this straight. You've got BitKeeper loaded on your system
and you've got a kernel tree, and you've made a patch, and you eventually
want to push it to Linus, or have him pull it, but you can't get the docs
because you're not connected? Yeesh. I can't believe I responded to this.

--
Daniel