Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Daniel Phillips (phillips@bonn-fries.net)
Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:36:31 +0200
On Sunday 21 April 2002 18:27, Richard Gooch wrote:
> Daniel Phillips writes:
> > 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?
>
> No. A pointer to the lkml FAQ is sufficient.
Was that a hint? Then certainly, a pointer to the BK documentation would be
sufficient, and save download bandwidth as well.
--
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/