Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>]

On Saturday 20 April 2002 19:51, Larry McVoy wrote:
> If you dump the licensing discussion and think about how BK could help 
> you, you can see we are half to an improvement over the "mail to the 
> list" model.  The problem I had with the "mail to the list" model was
> that it was easy to miss something and then not realized that you
> had missed it.

True, but it also seemed to create a certain energy that now seems to be
slipping away.  Maybe this is just called 'maturity', I don't know.  Now,
my original objection was *only* to the inclusion of the Bitkeeper
documentation in the kernel tree.  A well-known developer who has chosen
to stay out of the discussion - perhaps by reason of being asleep - used
the term 'bitkeeper mafia'.  That's not a good sign.  At this juncture, a
little moderation, as you've shown, could do a lot to mitigate that
perception.

Then it would be back to the usual programming: how to make it all better.

> Now a lot of that stuff is ending up on bkbits.net
> and if there was a way to say "tell me everything that is there but
> not here", that would be a distinct improvement, it means that the 
> "mail" is archived and you can find it when you want it.

The missing part is watching the mail go by.  It's the discourse, where
has it gone?  What happened to the times when patches were actually
discussed before going into the tree?  Can we somehow have that and
bitkeeper too... and a fairy castle... 

-- 
Daniel