Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree | Date | Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:21:55 +0200 |
| |
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?
> If you don't want to use bitkeeper you don't need to read this > documentation. Just ignore it and stick with what is SubmittingPatches > document. > > What's your problem?
I am worried that a creeping takeover of the Linux hitherto-successful development process is in progress, that concensus on this topic has not been achieved, and that there is a split coming. That would not be good.
As always, what I do is in the interest of Linux and freedom. That interest is not served by driving a wedge firmly between two groups of Linux developers. I hope you understand that I am a *moderate* with respect to this issue.
-- Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |