Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Jeff Garzik]

Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Sunday 21 April 2002 18:57, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 06:46:11PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > 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.
> 
> How much less convenient is it to click on a link?  So much harder that it's
> worth pissing off some key developers?

Linus has already explained why he put it into the kernel sources.

And, who are these key developers you are speaking for?

> > 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.
> 
> According to you, yes.  I'll leave it on the table.

Linus has already explained he isn't applying your patch.

	Jeff