On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 11:37:29PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Well. Could always start now, and please count the places in the thread
> where I say BitKeeper is a good thing for Linux. Commerical breaks in
> in the source tree itself are considerably less good.
Establishing that something is a commercial break requires more than
saying "Hey, that talks about features of X commercial product". It
involves *also* establishing that the commercial break doesn't apply those
features to linux kernel programming in an instructional manner. If you
haven't done both, then you haven't done enough to justify removing said
"commercial break" from the kernel archive. As long as the "commercial
break" is an instructional document I'll advocate that it stays where it
is. The *most* you will ever get me to agree to is the possible removal
of obviously superflous and advocacy related statements that don't
contribute to the instructional nature of the document.
--
Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com> 919-754-3700 x44233
Red Hat, Inc.
1801 Varsity Dr.
Raleigh, NC 27606
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 23 2002 - 22:00:33 EST