Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 13:17:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 13:17:30 -0400 Received: from neon-gw-l3.transmeta.com ([63.209.4.196]:54288 "EHLO neon-gw.transmeta.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 13:17:16 -0400 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 10:16:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Roman Zippel cc: David Lang , Jeff Garzik , Daniel Phillips , Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree In-Reply-To: <3CC19FD9.1D3F8168@linux-m68k.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Roman Zippel wrote: > > They are lots of kernel projects, which use cvs, but noone before > considered submitting extensive cvs documentation into the kernel. More importantly, there was no way in hell I would synchronize with a CVS tree, so CVS was a non-entity as far as patch submittal was concerned. The BK documentation is _nothing_ more than a alternative to "SubmittingPatches". Anyway, I'm not going to discuss this any more. If somebody has actual construcive ideas about trying to improve other tools or putting the BK docs in some place that is equally obvious and easily available for all parties but somehow "less disturbing" to people with a weak stomach, go for it. But I'm not interested in yet another religious whine-war. Linus - 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/