Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Jeff Garzik]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 06:46:11PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Sunday 21 April 2002 18:32, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 02:04:07AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > Since Linus uses BK, and the document is there in the first place
> > to make life easier, Daniel is therefore making life more difficult
> > because of ideology, and no other reason.
> 
> Yup, that's me.  No, I don't always check my conscience at the door.  If
> that were my habit I'd have spent the past three years comfortably
> programming big, expensive machines under Windows.
> 
> N.B., not implying you're morally bankrupt, no suggestion of that at
> all.  Still, since you just dumps on all those who prefer to follow
> their hearts, you deserve to be publically challenged.

Public challenges kick ass. As people here know, I love a good flamewar :)

I follow my heart quite often, so I've no doubt I will be on the other
side of the coin.  I get dumped on by vendors for being staunchly GPL
when doing driver development.  We all pick our issues.  :)

> Let's pull back a little from the proselytizing, shall we?  I'll modify
> my proposal to 'include just a pointer to the bk documentation in the
> kernel tree itself'.  This should satisfy everybody.

No, it doesn't.  It was put into the tree for convenience.
It therefore stands to reason that removing it creates inconvenience.
Further, the only reason to remove it is ideology.  i.e. something
other than technical merit.  So your proposal is still a no-go.

My advice to you:  ignore Documentation/BK-usage, it is apparently
causing you anguish :)

	Jeff