Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree | Date | Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:36:31 +0200 |
| |
On Sunday 21 April 2002 18:27, Richard Gooch wrote: > 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.
Was that a hint? Then certainly, a pointer to the BK documentation would be sufficient, and save download bandwidth as well.
-- 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/
| |