Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+akpm=40zip.com.au@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S313714AbSDUS17>; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 14:27:59 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S313727AbSDUS00>; Sun, 21 Apr 2002 14:26:26 -0400
Received: from brooklyn-bridge.emea.veritas.com ([62.172.234.2]:4134 "EHLO
	einstein.homenet") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S313719AbSDUS0N>;
	Sun, 21 Apr 2002 14:26:13 -0400
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 19:25:20 +0100 (BST)
From: Tigran Aivazian <tigran@aivazian.name>
X-X-Sender: <tigran@einstein.homenet>
To: CaT <cat@zip.com.au>
cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Suggestion re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux
 tree
In-Reply-To: <20020421171629.GK4640@zip.com.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0204211921520.9887-100000@einstein.homenet>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, CaT wrote:
> this is the biggest (or one of the biggest) sticking points then why not
> get BK to email the lk mailing list when there's a patch submitted with
> a desc of the patch and the patch itself

sounds like an excellent idea and if it is accepted I will even withdraw
my comment about wolves and sheep :)

The key thing to observe now is whether in response to your idea there
will be the same sort of demagogical nonsense "generated" as an excuse not
to do it (i.e. things like "not enough bandwidth" or "why don't you do it"
etc...)

Regards,
Tigran

-
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/