Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

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

On Sunday 21 April 2002 19:22, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On Sunday 21 April 2002 18:57, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 06:46:11PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > > Let's pull back a little from the proselytizing, shall we?  I'll modify
> > > > my proposal to 'include just a pointer to the bk documentation in the
> > > > kernel tree itself'.  This should satisfy everybody.
> > > 
> > > No, it doesn't.  It was put into the tree for convenience.
> > 
> > How much less convenient is it to click on a link?  So much harder that it's
> > worth pissing off some key developers?
> 
> Linus has already explained why he put it into the kernel sources.

So far the only argument I've seen is: it's convenient.  Did I miss something?

The convenience argument is bogus.  A url is just as convenient, especially as
Larry has offered an appropriate home, one which will by definition continue
to exist as long as Bitkeeper stays alive.  Plus, the url saves download
bandwidth.  A compelling argument I'd say.

> And, who are these key developers you are speaking for?

They can introduce themselves if they wish.  Or you can ask around.

-- 
Daniel