[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

    Jeff Garzik wrote:

    > What was Daniel's action? Remove the text. Nothing else. Sure, he
    > suggested other options, but he did attempt to implement them? No.
    > He just implied that people need to step up and do this work for him.

    He made his intention very clear, you are interpreting something in his
    action, that simply isn't there.

    > Daniel attempted to remove speech he disgreed with from wide
    > distribution -- on distro CDs, mirrors, etc. I am hoping
    > it is plainly obvious that removing a doc from one of the mostly
    > widely distributed open source projects reduces the doc's distribution
    > dramatically. _That_ is a form of censorship, just like buying out
    > printing presses, to silence them, in the old days. It's still
    > around... just progressively harder to obtain.

    Censorship requires the means to enforce it and has Daniel this ability?
    Could we please stop these "censorship" and "ideology" arguments? In
    this context they are simply nonsense.

    > And the answer is, it is BK documentation written for kernel developers
    > by kernel developers, with the intention of being a SubmittingPatches
    > document for BK users. Very relevant to kernel devel. This relevance
    > was proved by its origin -- emails bouncing back and forth, generally
    > originating by Linus, CC'ing me, asking me for the emails I had
    > already sent to other hackers, describing kernel development under BK.

    kernel development with bk requires net access and so it's sufficient,
    when it's available over the net. On the other hand SubmittingPatches
    describes the lowest common denominator, which works with any SCM and
    doesn't favour any of them.
    Personally I don't care what tools people use, but I'm getting
    concerned, when a nonfree tool is advertised as tool of choice for
    kernel for development as if there would be no choice. bk has advantages
    for distributed development, but beside of this they are alternatives
    and we should rather encourage users to try them and to help with the
    development of them. But there isn't anything like that, so Joe Hacker
    has to think he should use bk as SCM to get his patch into the kernel,
    because Linus is using it.

    bye, Roman
    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:1.852 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site