Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+akpm=40zip.com.au@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S313508AbSDUQ1d>; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 12:27:33 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S313537AbSDUQ1c>; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 12:27:32 -0400
Received: from vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca ([136.159.55.21]:36498 "EHLO
	vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S313508AbSDUQ1c>; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 12:27:32 -0400
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 10:27:27 -0600
Message-Id: <200204211627.g3LGRR519595@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca>
From: Richard Gooch <rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca>
To: Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net>
Cc: Anton Altaparmakov <aia21@cantab.net>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
In-Reply-To: <E16yb92-0000Tk-00@starship>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Daniel Phillips writes:
> On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:13, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > Daniel,
> > 
> > This is not documentation for bitkeeper but how to use bitkeeper 
> > effectively for kernel development. It happens to be DAMN USEFULL 
> > documentation at that for anyone wanting to use bitkeeper for kernel 
> > development so IMO it fully belongs in the kernel. Just like the 
> > SubmittingPatches document does, too. Or are you going to remove that as well?
> 
> By that logic, we should also include the lkml FAQ in the kernel
> tree.  Should we?

No. A pointer to the lkml FAQ is sufficient.

				Regards,

					Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@atnf.csiro.au
Current:   rgooch@ras.ucalgary.ca
-
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/