[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
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.


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    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean