[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
    On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 08:26:58PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
    > On Sunday 21 April 2002 20:15, Jeff Garzik wrote:
    > > On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 08:13:48PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
    > > > Linus said:
    > > >
    > > > > As to why the docs are in the kernel sources rather than on any web-sites:
    > > > > it's simply because I don't even _have_ a web page of my own (I've long
    > > > > since forgotten the password to my old account ;),
    > > >
    > > > Larry has offered to host it, so Linus's argument is answered.
    > >
    > > These are docs-about-Linus, not docs-about-Larry.
    > >
    > > Do you propose to move SubmittingPatches and all info related to CVS, to
    > > Larry's web site?
    > Which part of 'Larry offered to host it' was not completely clear?
    > CVS does not have the license issues. Red herring.

    No, this is, to me, _the_ issue. And something you keep ignoring.
    And proving that you ignored the point of Linus's first post in
    this thread.

    We have docs describing how kernel developers should merge with Linus.
    In your opinion, if those docs describe closed source software,
    they should be treated differently than other docs. Regardless of

    They _are_ relevant, everyone admits that. Therefore treating them
    differently only introduces additional barriers and violates the
    Principle of Least Surprise.

    You are, in effect, trying to disallow politically incorrect speech
    from the kernel sources.


    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:0.024 / U:32.492 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site