Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+akpm=40zip.com.au@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S313472AbSDUP7K>; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 11:59:10 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S313479AbSDUP7J>; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 11:59:09 -0400
Received: from panic.tn.gatech.edu ([130.207.137.62]:18847 "HELO gtf.org")
	by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id <S313472AbSDUP7J>;
	Sun, 21 Apr 2002 11:59:09 -0400
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 11:59:04 -0400
From: Jeff Garzik <garzik@havoc.gtf.org>
To: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
Cc: Ian Molton <spyro@armlinux.org>, zippel@linux-m68k.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Message-ID: <20020421115904.G2301@havoc.gtf.org>
In-Reply-To: <E16ya3u-0000RG-00@starship> <20020421033038.4bd1b9ec.spyro@armlinux.org> <20020421113312.C2301@havoc.gtf.org> <E16yx4j-0000ja-00@starship>
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 Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 05:46:57PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Sunday 21 April 2002 17:33, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 03:30:38AM +0100, Ian Molton wrote:
> > > Jeff Garzik Awoke this dragon, who will now respond:
> > > 
> > > > > Maybe I was to subtle, but your censorship argument is simply bullshit.
> > > > > A link to the information is completely sufficient.
> > > > 
> > > > What was Daniel's action?  Remove the text.  Nothing else.  Sure, he
> > > > suggested other options, but he did attempt to implement them?  No.
> > > 
> > > Be realistic - how is he supposed to do that?
> > 
> > It's really trivial to put a document up on a Web site, before
> > submitting a patch to remove said document.  Or to contact someone, and
> > get them to post the doc.
> > 
> > Did he even attempt to do that?  No.
> 
> You're wrong.  I suggested posting the documents on the bitkeeper site among
> other things and Larry agreed to do that.  What do you think I should have done,
> demanded that Larry do that?

Suggestion != doing

If Linus had applied your patch, there would be a lag time during which
the doc would have no home at all.

Anything _other_ than removal before re-posting, what you attempted to
do, would have been far more palatable.  One doesn't create their
fallback _after_ they nuke the primary.

	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/