Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 14:06:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 14:06:18 -0400 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:37459 "EHLO frodo.biederman.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 14:06:05 -0400 To: Anton Altaparmakov Cc: Daniel Phillips , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020420170907.06e87550@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> <5.1.0.14.2.20020420170907.06e87550@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> <5.1.0.14.2.20020420174422.00ad1390@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: 20 Apr 2002 11:58:11 -0600 Message-ID: Lines: 19 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 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 Anton Altaparmakov writes: > 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... Faster? BK has no impact on the fundamentals of code development. Only on the problem of merging code. Only when the bottle neck is merge speed does it really come into play. For Linus this is obviously a very important issue. For some of the rest of us it is less so. For myself I find great benefit in reviewing my own patches, and in having other people look at them and review them. I may be wrong but I do not see bitkeeper helping in that regard (except reduce the noise of renames). Eric - 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/