Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:11:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:11:19 -0400 Received: from dsl-213-023-040-105.arcor-ip.net ([213.23.40.105]:49555 "EHLO starship") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 13:11:18 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:11:55 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: Roman Zippel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To:

<20020421125725.B4479@havoc.gtf.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 18:57, Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 06:46:11PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > Let's pull back a little from the proselytizing, shall we? I'll modify > > my proposal to 'include just a pointer to the bk documentation in the > > kernel tree itself'. This should satisfy everybody. > > No, it doesn't. It was put into the tree for convenience. How much less convenient is it to click on a link? So much harder that it's worth pissing off some key developers? > It therefore stands to reason that removing it creates inconvenience. > Further, the only reason to remove it is ideology. i.e. something > other than technical merit. So your proposal is still a no-go. According to you, yes. I'll leave it on the table. -- 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/