Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 12:51:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 12:51:47 -0400 Received: from mole.bio.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.36.9]:14370 "EHLO mole.bio.cam.ac.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 12:51:46 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020420174422.00ad1390@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 17:51:49 +0100 To: Daniel Phillips From: Anton Altaparmakov Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org At 17:21 19/04/02, Daniel Phillips wrote: >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? The lkml FAQ is aimed at users, not developers. The bitkeeper and the SubmittingPatches document are aimed at developers. I see a fundamental difference here... > > 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. The fact that some developers use bitkeeper has no effect on other developers. Well ok, it means that the bk using developers can work faster but that is not at issue here... I don't see why there should be any kind of split or anything like that. Everything continues as before. It's just that some developers now have a much easier life... Anton -- "I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown -- Anton Altaparmakov (replace at with @) Linux NTFS Maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.openprojects.net WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/ - 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/