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

Jeff Garzik
2002-04-22T21:25:44Z

On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 11:05:11PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Monday 22 April 2002 22:53, Doug Ledford wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 10:29:19PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > You haven't read the thread closely, this was described before. There are
> > > one documentation file and three scripts. The documentation file is about
> > > half general description of Bitkeeper - which is quite unabashedly
> > > promotional and the author does describe it as an adverisement - and half
> > > how to use for submitting kernel patches.
> >
> > Now, now Daniel, let's not put words into people's mouths. Jeff has said
> > he does like BitKeeper, and he said he could *see how you think his
> > description is an advertisement* but that he *didn't write it as an
> > advertisement*.
>
> He agreed it was an advertisement.

To clear things up:

* The intent of the doc is to help kernel developers
* The intent was NOT to advertise BK
* An unavoidable side effect of the doc's presence is implicit advertisement
* I certainly promote the use of BitKeeper

Please keep these things separate...

To imply that the BK doc is an intentioned advertisement is silly.
It's in the kernel source tree to help people with, like it or not, what
is a part of kernel development. An _optional_ part.

Jeff