Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Daniel Phillips]

On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:13, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> Daniel,
> 
> This is not documentation for bitkeeper but how to use bitkeeper 
> effectively for kernel development. It happens to be DAMN USEFULL 
> documentation at that for anyone wanting to use bitkeeper for kernel 
> development so IMO it fully belongs in the kernel. Just like the 
> SubmittingPatches document does, too. Or are you going to remove that as well?

By that logic, we should also include the lkml FAQ in the kernel tree.  Should
we?

> If you don't want to use bitkeeper you don't need to read this 
> documentation. Just ignore it and stick with what is SubmittingPatches 
> document.
> 
> What's your problem?

I am worried that a creeping takeover of the Linux hitherto-successful
development process is in progress, that concensus on this topic has not been
achieved, and that there is a split coming.  That would not be good.

As always, what I do is in the interest of Linux and freedom.  That interest
is not served by driving a wedge firmly between two groups of Linux developers.
I hope you understand that I am a *moderate* with respect to this issue.

-- 
Daniel