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

[Anton Altaparmakov]

At 19:16 21/04/02, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>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 was refering to the BK docs, not CVS and yes, BK works disconected. Which 
was for me one of the important decision points in in switching ntfs driver 
development to it. Together with easy merging of new kernel releases, etc, 
etc...

> > 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.

Oh I wasn't refering just to you. I was refering to the "silently seething" 
kernel hackers you mentioned but refused to name...

> > 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?

You obviously didn't read my mail properly. )-:

It is an inconvenience having to go lookup some website instead of having 
the doc right there. What part of that do you not understand? Perhaps you 
have a 24x7 internet connection, many people don't. Perhaps this is a 
surpise to you? I have the luxury of living in college provided 
accomodation with local lan connections in place, but this summer I will 
have to move into my own accomodation and it is very well possible I will 
not be able to have 24x7 internet... (I will try to find accomodation where 
I can get a cable modem but it may not be feasible for financial reasons.) 
For anyone not connected to the net it would be an inconvenience to have to 
look up the net. I think that this is self-evident but you obvious don't 
think so...

Best regards,

Anton