Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:30:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:30:35 -0400 Received: from ns1.alcove-solutions.com ([212.155.209.139]:64475 "EHLO smtp-out.fr.alcove.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:30:35 -0400 Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 00:30:24 +0200 From: Stelian Pop To: Daniel Phillips Cc: Linus Torvalds , Anton Altaparmakov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree Message-ID: <20020420223024.GB2994@come.alcove-fr> Reply-To: Stelian Pop Mail-Followup-To: Stelian Pop , Daniel Phillips , Linus Torvalds , Anton Altaparmakov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To:

<20020420170747.B14186@havoc.gtf.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 12:01:35AM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > My conclusion: though there are more BK patches being applied to Linus's > tree than non-BK, they are generating less discussion on lkml than non-BK > patches do. Or to put it bluntly: BK patches are not being discussed. Or maybe using a SCM puts more pressure on the developper which writes better code, which will get accepted with less discussion. In general, when you seek discussion with a quick and dirty piece of code, you post a patch, not the BK equivalent, since you know this will not get accepted anyway... Stelian. -- Stelian Pop Alcove - http://www.alcove.com - 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/