Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:58:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:57:01 -0400 Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([208.129.208.51]:10140 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:56:24 -0400 X-AuthUser: davidel@xmailserver.org Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:04:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Davide Libenzi X-X-Sender: davide@blue1.dev.mcafeelabs.com To: Jeff Garzik cc: Daniel Phillips , dean gaudet , Larry McVoy , Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree In-Reply-To: <20020422164728.H20999@havoc.gtf.org> Message-ID: 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, Jeff Garzik wrote: > The real question, as I understand it, is whether or not the kernel doc > should be in the kernel source or not. If the answer is 'no', then I > fully support making it a URL, or printing it out the back of > phonebooks, or whatever means of distribution :) i really tried to remain out of this. in theory, like Linus said, we should not even know that he's using bk. it should be completely hidden. the only method described inside the kernel tarbal should be the old diff+patch one. main maintainers ( i mean the group of at most 10 that are handling huge number of patches and that are highly interacting with Linus ) will very likely get benefits from using bk instead of diff+patch, but for these one no doc is necessary. either they know or Larry can provide them with all the docs they need. for all the remaining crew, bk adoption is simply a trend followup. - Davide - 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/