Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Daniel Phillips]

On Sunday 21 April 2002 17:59, Russell King wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 05:44:07PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > This may in fact be nothing more than a fear.  However if there is any
> > chance I'm talking about a real phenomenon then I would indeed be remiss in
> > failing to draw attention to it.
> 
> I've been trying to get you to quantify this further.  So far, all we've
> seen are half-sides of the story.  Please give the full story:
> 
> 1. Quantify how much discussion about GNU patches there is on LKML in
>    total.
> 2. Quantify how much discussion about BK merges there is on LKML.

I already did both, and posted the results.  I put considerable energy into
it, and I am not going to put more time into it.  If you want to dispute my
(unscientific) results then please repeat my survey or carry out one in
accordance with your own, presumably higher standards.

> And now this is the important bit that hasn't been done:
> 
>   Including how many of each class:
>   a) have been included into Linus' tree.
>   b) have not been included into Linus' tree.

True.  I suspect somebody can just look at some statistics somewhere to know
that.  Personally, I don't know how to do that efficiently and I'm not going
to do it.  I'll speculate though: I guess that BK patches outnumber GNU
patches by more than a factor of 3.

> Then you can come up with sensible figures that actually mean something,
> rather than some vague fear about a phenomenon that may in fact be a
> fantasy.
> 
> Facts.  Facts.  Facts.

Right.  I made the conjecture, if you wish to verify/disprove it then feel
free.  I did my share of the work already.

-- 
Daniel