Re: BK, deltas, snapshots and fate of -pre...

[Daniel Phillips]

On Monday 22 April 2002 20:01, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> At 18:17 21/04/02, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >The other example specifically mentioned was the CVS documentation for jfs,
> >and yes, I think that moving those instructions to the web site in question
> >would make a lot of sense, leaving a URL wherever the docs once were.  By
> >definition, the CVS instructions will be available on that site as long as
> >they are useful, and not a moment longer.
> 
> Personally I find it _extremely_ annoying having to go and lookup web sites 
> which the kernel points me to instead of just having the docs in the kernel 
> in the first place.

But they are instructions for CVS, you're just about to go to some effort to
download over the web.  Bogus.

> I would much rather see a disclaimer put in Jeff's document stating that 
> "you don't need to use it, gnu patches are just fine with everyone, etc" as 
> others have already suggested.

Well, maybe it's really the best thing, or perhaps it's the best I can hope
for if I want to stop getting beaten up by the BitKeeper mafia.

> If such disclaimer doesn't appease the anti-bitkeeper crew

Please don't assign me membership in any anti-bitkeeper crew.  I am not
anti-BitKeeper.  If you must have an epithet, try "anti-advertising-in-the-tree"
crew.

> then moving the 
> document out won't either, so moving it out would be a waste of time in 
> addition to penalizing people who want to use bitkeeper, which is unfair 
> and incorrect.

Changing the documents for a url penalizes you exactly how?

-- 
Daniel