Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:37:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:37:48 -0400 Received: from dsl-213-023-039-131.arcor-ip.net ([213.23.39.131]:13728 "EHLO starship") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:37:06 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Daniel Phillips To: Doug Ledford Subject: Re: BK, deltas, snapshots and fate of -pre... Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 23:37:29 +0200 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2] Cc: Larry McVoy , Ian Molton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To:

<20020422172130.C914@redhat.com> 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 Monday 22 April 2002 23:21, Doug Ledford wrote: > On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 11:05:11PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote: > > Would everybody with no mouse on their system please stand up, and leave > > the room. > > > > Seriously, you're trolling. > > No more so than your bandwidth argument...pot->kettle. I'll stick with the bandwidth argument. 99.99% of the people who download Linux don't need the Bitkeeper docs at all. Waste of cycles. Think what happens to the source if we don't care at all about extra bulk. Hint: I've got a 75 meg compressed source file here from an embedded systems vendor that has about 5 meg that I actually use. If Jeff wants to give me only 2.95 out of 3 points for my arguments, that's his business. > > > I put my docs on my web site because that's what I owned/controlled and it > > > was relevant to people already coming to my web site. That in no way > > > indicates that your position is correct, especially since you ignored to > > > truly relevant item in my email: > > > > I'm actually trying to do a little work as well as handle all the input > > from the Bitkeeper moonies, thankyou. > > > > Err, did I say moonies, sorry I meant advocates, err, apologists, umm. > > Right, nice personal attack to deflect the arguments I actually wrote. It was fuhhhhhneee. Get a grip please. > BTW, I've never used BK. I've never actually even gone to the BK web > site. That's probably why I haven't bothered to read the submitting > patches using BK *HOWTO* doc in the kernel doc area. Well. Could always start now, and please count the places in the thread where I say BitKeeper is a good thing for Linux. Commerical breaks in in the source tree itself are considerably less good. > > > > > information so that the whole picture, from start to finish, was all > > > > > described in one easy to access place. > > > > > > One place for relevant information, from start to finish. > > > > Right. bitkeeper.com, any argument? > > Yeah. I'll go to bitkeeper.com to learn about how to use bitkeeper. I > don't expect nor want to go there to learn about how to send a patch to > Linus. It's not the appropriate venue for that information. Could have fooled me. I thought that getting Linux developers to endorse BitKeeper was a key part of Larry's business plan, which, by the way, I fully support. I just don't support the part that turns Documentation into a billboard. -- 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/