Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 17:07:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 17:07:48 -0400 Received: from panic.tn.gatech.edu ([130.207.137.62]:58253 "HELO gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 17:07:48 -0400 Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 17:07:47 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Linus Torvalds , Anton Altaparmakov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree Message-ID: <20020420170747.B14186@havoc.gtf.org> In-Reply-To:

Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:02:04PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > Martin Dalecki's IDE patch, gosh, look at all the fun. It's a non-BK > patch, let's see if there's a pattern. Hmm, the next bushy one is "[PATCH] > zerocopy NFS updated", descending from a traditional patch set. The next > one, "[PATCH] IDE TCQ #4" is also a traditional patch. Hmm, no bitkeeper > patches showing up yet, I don't think I need to go on. > > There is a clear inverse relationship between the bk-ness of a patch and > the extent to which it's discussed on lkml. I don't know what to read into > that, but it does seem to lend credence to the idea that the bitkeeper > style of working is not compatible with the idea of community discussion. Concrete examples, please? Which patches are the stealth patches? Jeff - 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/