Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

Daniel Phillips
2002-04-21T16:37:46Z

On Sunday 21 April 2002 18:27, Richard Gooch wrote:
> Daniel Phillips writes:
> > On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:13, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > > Daniel,
> > >
> > > This is not documentation for bitkeeper but how to use bitkeeper
> > > effectively for kernel development. It happens to be DAMN USEFULL
> > > documentation at that for anyone wanting to use bitkeeper for kernel
> > > development so IMO it fully belongs in the kernel. Just like the
> > > SubmittingPatches document does, too. Or are you going to remove that as well?
> >
> > By that logic, we should also include the lkml FAQ in the kernel
> > tree. Should we?
>
> No. A pointer to the lkml FAQ is sufficient.

Was that a hint? Then certainly, a pointer to the BK documentation would be
sufficient, and save download bandwidth as well.

--
Daniel