Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Daniel Phillips]

On Sunday 21 April 2002 20:36, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 08:29:04PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > On Sunday 21 April 2002 20:21, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > > > As to why the docs are in the kernel sources rather than on any web-sites:
> > > > > it's simply because I don't even _have_ a web page of my own (I've long
> > > > > since forgotten the password to my old helsinki.fi account ;),
> > > > 
> > > > Larry has offered to host it, so Linus's argument is answered.
> > > 
> > > Larry hereby retracts his offer until you back up your claims and answer
> > > the questions you have been asked.  You've made one unsubstantiated
> > > claim after another and when challenged, you tell the challenger to do
> > > the legwork to support your unsubstantiated claim.
> > 
> > So the offer was not in good faith.
> 
> Like I said, Daniel, put up or shut up.  Would you like me to go through
> the thread and come up with a list of claims you have made, been challenged
> on, and refuse to substantiate?

Larry, you just lathered on a bunch of new conditions of dubious merit.  I
understand by this that you had no real intention of following through on
your offer because you thought that it would never get close to becoming
reality.

> We can discuss the good-faith issue *after* you answer the questions.

Riiiiight.  I have at least forwarded your demands to those who have
expressed their positions to me privately.  If you think I'm going to
violate their confidence on your whim, you can think again.

-- 
Daniel