Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 12:37:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 12:37:43 -0400 Received: from dsl-213-023-040-105.arcor-ip.net ([213.23.40.105]:21907 "EHLO starship") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 12:36:39 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Richard Gooch Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:36:31 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: Anton Altaparmakov , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020420170907.06e87550@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> <200204211627.g3LGRR519595@vindaloo.ras.ucalgary.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sunday 21 April 2002 18:27, Richard Gooch wrote: > 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. Was that a hint? Then certainly, a pointer to the BK documentation would be sufficient, and save download bandwidth as well. -- Daniel - 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/