Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:06:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:06:06 -0400 Received: from dsl-213-023-040-105.arcor-ip.net ([213.23.40.105]:44691 "EHLO starship") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:06:00 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Kenneth Johansson Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:05:40 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: Jeff Garzik , Anton Altaparmakov , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To:

<3CC1F6AB.16C5E6D3@kenjo.org> 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 01:15, Kenneth Johansson wrote: > 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. Good point. Perhaps we extend this idea to: A patch goes into the tree that really should have been discussed but wasn't, now we know who to beat up. Err, like the BK documentation patch. -- 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/