Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:16:33 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:16:31 -0400 Received: from as3-1-8.ras.s.bonet.se ([217.215.75.181]:26340 "EHLO garbo.kenjo.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:16:24 -0400 Message-ID: <3CC1F6AB.16C5E6D3@kenjo.org> Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 01:15:55 +0200 From: Kenneth Johansson X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.19-pre3 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Phillips CC: Jeff Garzik , Linus Torvalds , Anton Altaparmakov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree In-Reply-To:

<20020420170747.B14186@havoc.gtf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. I think your conclusion is wrong and there has always gone patches directly to Linus even before BK. With BK we can actually see who did what and often why so if something gets in that should not we know who to blame. If anything this should make people think one extra time before hitting the send button. - 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/