Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk)
Sun, 21 Apr 2002 17:15:15 +0100

On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 06:10:12PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Sunday 21 April 2002 17:59, Russell King wrote:
> > 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.

Yes you did. The results were meaningless without reference to which
gets into Linus' tree and which don't.

> 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.

Shrug - I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove _your_ point to
myself.

> Right. I made the conjecture,

Correct, and it isn't up to me to prove it.

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

I therefore consider this matter inadequately proven and closed.

-- 
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk)                The developer of ARM Linux
             http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html


-
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/