Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[dean gaudet]

On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:

> 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.

so then you're having private discussions in email, and one of your
complaints is about other private discussions in email?

On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:

> All you said is 'it doesn't waste *that* much bandwidth'.  Remember, this is
> the place we spend days arguing over a cycle or two.

this bk thread alone has so far consumed 597023 bytes just for the message
bodies... plus who knows how many bytes for TCP/IP headers, SMTP overhead,
and DNS overhead.  that's uncompressed, and multiplied by the, hmm,
approximately 2000 subscribers to l-k plus the dozen or two web archives
of l-k?

what was that you were saying about wasting bandwidth?  if you cared at
all about bandwidth you might want to consider not replying.

personally i probably wouldn't be so interested in bk if it weren't for
all the zealots telling me it's something i shouldn't even consider using.
your approach is about as effective as the war on drugs, or minimum
alcohol consumption age limits.  tell what i can't do and i'm damn well
going to go investigate what it is that's supposedly so bad for me.

thanks to all of you for pointing me in the direction of a tool which
looks to be a huge step forward in SCM.  i believe "paradigm shift" would
be an apt term for bk.

-dean