[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
    On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:02:04PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
    > Martin Dalecki's IDE patch, gosh, look at all the fun. It's a non-BK
    > patch, let's see if there's a pattern. Hmm, the next bushy one is "[PATCH]
    > zerocopy NFS updated", descending from a traditional patch set. The next
    > one, "[PATCH] IDE TCQ #4" is also a traditional patch. Hmm, no bitkeeper
    > patches showing up yet, I don't think I need to go on.
    > There is a clear inverse relationship between the bk-ness of a patch and
    > the extent to which it's discussed on lkml. I don't know what to read into
    > that, but it does seem to lend credence to the idea that the bitkeeper
    > style of working is not compatible with the idea of community discussion.

    Concrete examples, please?

    Which patches are the stealth patches?


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.021 / U:104.476 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site