Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Daniel Phillips]

On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:37, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > 
> > Take your closed mind elsewhere.  I'm pretty sure Linus has more sense
> > than to apply this patch.
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> Like it or not, I personally use BK. I don't use CVS, and I don't use 
> subversion. 
> 
> If anybody wants to maintain his own kernel, feel free to remove the 
> documentation on how to interact with _me_. In such a kernel, those docs 
> would obviously be meaningless. 
> 
> In fact, Daniel, if you had bothered to just even grep for CVS, you would 
> have noticed that we've had CVS information for some other subprojects 
> too, because _they_ happen to use CVS. Would you argue for removal of the 
> CVS information in Documentation/filesystems/jfs.txt file?
> 
> And if not, then you're a hypocritical bastard with a religious agenda.

Err, and if I to argue for it then I'm not?  That's easy I argue for it.
Do you think the jfs team will object?

Anyway, that was not serious, I will not argue for the removal of
information on how to use CVS, and gpl'd tool, from the tree.  Even though
I think the tree would be better off without it.  This is not an issue.
A steady slide toward proprietary tools and behind-the-scenes development
in cathedral-style is an issue.  This is not the Linux I knew, or thought
I knew, it is more like FreeBSD.

-- 
Daniel