Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Jeff Garzik]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 05:46:57PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Sunday 21 April 2002 17:33, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 03:30:38AM +0100, Ian Molton wrote:
> > > Jeff Garzik Awoke this dragon, who will now respond:
> > > 
> > > > > Maybe I was to subtle, but your censorship argument is simply bullshit.
> > > > > A link to the information is completely sufficient.
> > > > 
> > > > What was Daniel's action?  Remove the text.  Nothing else.  Sure, he
> > > > suggested other options, but he did attempt to implement them?  No.
> > > 
> > > Be realistic - how is he supposed to do that?
> > 
> > It's really trivial to put a document up on a Web site, before
> > submitting a patch to remove said document.  Or to contact someone, and
> > get them to post the doc.
> > 
> > Did he even attempt to do that?  No.
> 
> You're wrong.  I suggested posting the documents on the bitkeeper site among
> other things and Larry agreed to do that.  What do you think I should have done,
> demanded that Larry do that?

Suggestion != doing

If Linus had applied your patch, there would be a lag time during which
the doc would have no home at all.

Anything _other_ than removal before re-posting, what you attempted to
do, would have been far more palatable.  One doesn't create their
fallback _after_ they nuke the primary.

	Jeff