Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>
Subject: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 17:20:07 +0200
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Message-ID: <E16ya3u-0000RG-00@starship>
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.592.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
cyclone.bc.net!news.mailgate.org!bofh.it!robomod
X-Original-Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 17:12:33 +0200
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>,
linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
Lines: 572
Hi Linus,
I have up to this point been open to the use of Bitkeeper as a development
aid for Linux, and, again up to this point, have intended to make use of
Bitkeeper myself, taking a pragmatic attitude towards the concept of using
the best tool for the job. However, now I see that Bitkeeper documentation
has quietly been inserted ino the Linux Documentation directory, and that
without any apparent discussion on lkml. I fear that this demonstrates that
those who have called the use of Bitkeeper a slippery slope do have a point
after all.
I respectfully request that you consider applying the attached patch, which
reverses these proprietary additions to the Documentation directory. Perhaps
a better place for this documentation would be on kernel.org if Peter Anvin
agrees, or the submitter's own site if he does not. Or perhaps bitkeeper.com
would be willing to host these files.
Please do not misinterpret my position: I count Larry as something more than
a personal acquaintance. I strongly support his efforts to build a business
for himself out of his Bitkeeper creation. I even like Jeff Garzik's
documentation, the subject of this patch. I do not support the infusion of
documentation for proprietary software products into the Linux tree. The
message is that we have gone beyond optional usage of Bitkeeper here, and it
is now an absolute requirement, or it is on the way there.
I hope that this proposed patch will receive more discussion than the
original additions to Documentation did.
Thankyou,
Daniel
Patch
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:00:13 +0200
From: Jeff Garzik <gar...@havoc.gtf.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Message-ID: <20020420115233.A617@havoc.gtf.org>
References: <E16ya3u-0000RG-00@starship>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <E16ya3u-0000RG-00@starship>; from phillips@bonn-fries.net
on Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 05:12:33PM +0200
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.172.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mailgate.org!bofh.it!robomod
X-Original-Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>,
linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 11:52:33 -0400
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>
Lines: 26
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 05:12:33PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> I have up to this point been open to the use of Bitkeeper as a development
> aid for Linux, and, again up to this point, have intended to make use of
> Bitkeeper myself, taking a pragmatic attitude towards the concept of using
> the best tool for the job. However, now I see that Bitkeeper documentation
> has quietly been inserted ino the Linux Documentation directory, and that
> without any apparent discussion on lkml. I fear that this demonstrates that
> those who have called the use of Bitkeeper a slippery slope do have a point
> after all.
Guess what? You have the freedom to ignore these docs.
Guess what else? You are taking away freedoms by restricting speech,
making documents less available than they previously were.
Take your closed mind elsewhere. I'm pretty sure Linus has more sense
than to apply this patch.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:00:17 +0200
From: Jeff Garzik <gar...@havoc.gtf.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Message-ID: <20020420115416.B617@havoc.gtf.org>
References: <E16ya3u-0000RG-00@starship>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <E16ya3u-0000RG-00@starship>; from phillips@bonn-fries.net
on Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 05:12:33PM +0200
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.260.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mailgate.org!bofh.it!robomod
X-Original-Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>,
linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 11:54:16 -0400
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>
Lines: 21
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 05:12:33PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Please do not misinterpret my position: I count Larry as something more than
> a personal acquaintance. I strongly support his efforts to build a business
> for himself out of his Bitkeeper creation. I even like Jeff Garzik's
> documentation, the subject of this patch. I do not support the infusion of
It's also really, really, low class to not even CC me in your attempt
to remove the documentation I wrote from the kernel tree, and placed
into the kernel tree at Linus's request.
Rot in hell, closed mind.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20020420170907.06e87550@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk>
X-Sender: ai...@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:20:11 +0200
From: Anton Altaparmakov <ai...@cantab.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
In-Reply-To: <E16ya3u-0000RG-00@starship>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.928.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mailgate.org!bofh.it!robomod
References: <E16ya3u-0000RG-00@starship>
X-Original-Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>,
linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 17:13:25 +0100
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>
Lines: 63
Daniel,
This is not documentation for bitkeeper but how to use bitkeeper
effectively for kernel development. It happens to be DAMN USEFULL
documentation at that for anyone wanting to use bitkeeper for kernel
development so IMO it fully belongs in the kernel. Just like the
SubmittingPatches document does, too. Or are you going to remove that as well?
If you don't want to use bitkeeper you don't need to read this
documentation. Just ignore it and stick with what is SubmittingPatches
document.
What's your problem?
Best regards,
Anton
At 16:12 19/04/02, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>Hi Linus,
>
>I have up to this point been open to the use of Bitkeeper as a development
>aid for Linux, and, again up to this point, have intended to make use of
>Bitkeeper myself, taking a pragmatic attitude towards the concept of using
>the best tool for the job. However, now I see that Bitkeeper documentation
>has quietly been inserted ino the Linux Documentation directory, and that
>without any apparent discussion on lkml. I fear that this demonstrates that
>those who have called the use of Bitkeeper a slippery slope do have a point
>after all.
>
>I respectfully request that you consider applying the attached patch, which
>reverses these proprietary additions to the Documentation directory. Perhaps
>a better place for this documentation would be on kernel.org if Peter Anvin
>agrees, or the submitter's own site if he does not. Or perhaps bitkeeper.com
>would be willing to host these files.
>
>Please do not misinterpret my position: I count Larry as something more than
>a personal acquaintance. I strongly support his efforts to build a business
>for himself out of his Bitkeeper creation. I even like Jeff Garzik's
>documentation, the subject of this patch. I do not support the infusion of
>documentation for proprietary software products into the Linux tree. The
>message is that we have gone beyond optional usage of Bitkeeper here, and it
>is now an absolute requirement, or it is on the way there.
>
>I hope that this proposed patch will receive more discussion than the
>original additions to Documentation did.
>
>Thankyou,
>
>Daniel
--
"I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cantab.net> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS Maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.openprojects.net
WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Message-ID: <3CC19470.ACE2EFA1@linux-m68k.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:20:14 +0200
From: Roman Zippel <zip...@linux-m68k.org>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.18 i686)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
References: <E16ya3u-0000RG-00@starship> <20020420115233.A617@havoc.gtf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.119.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.infostrada.it!bofh.it!robomod
X-Original-Cc: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>, linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:16:48 +0200
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Jeff Garzik <gar...@havoc.gtf.org>
Lines: 17
Hi,
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Guess what else? You are taking away freedoms by restricting speech,
> making documents less available than they previously were.
So we soon include cvs/rcs/sccs/arch/subversion/aegis/prcs usage
information as well?
You certainly don't want to restrict the freedoms of other users?
bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:30:10 +0200
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2]
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020420170907.06e87550@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020420170907.06e87550@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Message-ID: <E16yb92-0000Tk-00@starship>
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.200.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.infostrada.it!bofh.it!robomod
X-Original-Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>,
linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:21:55 +0200
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Anton Altaparmakov <ai...@cantab.net>
Lines: 33
On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:13, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> This is not documentation for bitkeeper but how to use bitkeeper
> effectively for kernel development. It happens to be DAMN USEFULL
> documentation at that for anyone wanting to use bitkeeper for kernel
> development so IMO it fully belongs in the kernel. Just like the
> SubmittingPatches document does, too. Or are you going to remove that as well?
By that logic, we should also include the lkml FAQ in the kernel tree. Should
we?
> If you don't want to use bitkeeper you don't need to read this
> documentation. Just ignore it and stick with what is SubmittingPatches
> document.
>
> What's your problem?
I am worried that a creeping takeover of the Linux hitherto-successful
development process is in progress, that concensus on this topic has not been
achieved, and that there is a split coming. That would not be good.
As always, what I do is in the interest of Linux and freedom. That interest
is not served by driving a wedge firmly between two groups of Linux developers.
I hope you understand that I am a *moderate* with respect to this issue.
--
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:30:13 +0200
From: Jeff Garzik <gar...@havoc.gtf.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Message-ID: <20020420122541.B2093@havoc.gtf.org>
References: <E16ya3u-0000RG-00@starship> <20020420115233.A617@havoc.gtf.org>
<3CC19470.ACE2EFA1@linux-m68k.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <3CC19470.ACE2EFA1@linux-m68k.org>;
from zippel@linux-m68k.org on Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 06:16:48PM +0200
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.213.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.infostrada.it!bofh.it!robomod
X-Original-Cc: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>, linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 12:25:41 -0400
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Roman Zippel <zip...@linux-m68k.org>
Lines: 45
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 06:16:48PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> > Guess what else? You are taking away freedoms by restricting speech,
> > making documents less available than they previously were.
>
> So we soon include cvs/rcs/sccs/arch/subversion/aegis/prcs usage
> information as well?
> You certainly don't want to restrict the freedoms of other users?
Two issues here:
1) Daniel was attempting a 'remove' operation, you are describing an
'add'. The operations do the exact opposite in terms of information
dissemination.
2) If someone writes a good guide to using Arch with the Linux kernel,
or subversion, I don't have an objection to putting it into
Documentation.
Daniel disagrees with the content of the speech in
Documentation/BK-usage, based on his ideology. And he attempted to
restrict the dissemination of that speech. What is the definition
of censorship again?
People may think I'm just pissed because it's my doc he wanted to
remove, but that's only partially true. I see this as a clear cut
case of Daniel's ideology pushing him to attempt to restrict speech.
That is anti-freedom, no matter how you look at it, regardless of
whether we are talking about BitKeeper or anything else.
Maybe we should have warning labels on software, indicating that
a product does not conform completely to some idealist notion of
free software.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:40:12 +0200
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2]
References: <E16ya3u-0000RG-00@starship> <3CC19470.ACE2EFA1@linux-m68k.org>
<20020420122541.B2093@havoc.gtf.org>
In-Reply-To: <20020420122541.B2093@havoc.gtf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Message-ID: <E16ybKQ-0000U9-00@starship>
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.158.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.infostrada.it!bofh.it!robomod
X-Original-Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>,
linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:33:41 +0200
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Jeff Garzik <gar...@havoc.gtf.org>,
Roman Zippel <zip...@linux-m68k.org>
Lines: 35
On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:25, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 06:16:48PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > > Guess what else? You are taking away freedoms by restricting speech,
> > > making documents less available than they previously were.
> >
> > So we soon include cvs/rcs/sccs/arch/subversion/aegis/prcs usage
> > information as well?
> > You certainly don't want to restrict the freedoms of other users?
>
> Two issues here:
> 1) Daniel was attempting a 'remove' operation, you are describing an
> 'add'. The operations do the exact opposite in terms of information
> dissemination.
No I do not. Read the post. I suggested placing the documentation on
kernel.org, on your site, or on bitmover.com where it belongs. This
documentation for a proprietary software product does not belong in the
Linux kernel tree itself. It is nothing less than an advertisement.
Was it paid for?
(And there you may have an argument that would satisfy me. However, it
is not me I'm worried about. It is the other kernel developers who are
silently seething at this situation. Yes they are, use your ears.)
--
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:40:16 +0200
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
In-Reply-To: <20020420115233.A617@havoc.gtf.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0204200930360.11450-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.430.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.infostrada.it!bofh.it!robomod
References: <20020420115233.A617@havoc.gtf.org>
X-Original-Cc: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>,
<linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org>
X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 09:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Jeff Garzik <gar...@havoc.gtf.org>
Lines: 29
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> Take your closed mind elsewhere. I'm pretty sure Linus has more sense
> than to apply this patch.
Absolutely.
Like it or not, I personally use BK. I don't use CVS, and I don't use
subversion.
If anybody wants to maintain his own kernel, feel free to remove the
documentation on how to interact with _me_. In such a kernel, those docs
would obviously be meaningless.
In fact, Daniel, if you had bothered to just even grep for CVS, you would
have noticed that we've had CVS information for some other subprojects
too, because _they_ happen to use CVS. Would you argue for removal of the
CVS information in Documentation/filesystems/jfs.txt file?
And if not, then you're a hypocritical bastard with a religious agenda.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:50:08 +0200
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2]
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0204200930360.11450-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0204200930360.11450-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Message-ID: <E16ybVt-0000UV-00@starship>
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.957.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mailgate.org!bofh.it!robomod
X-Original-Cc: <linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org>
X-Original-Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 18:45:32 +0200
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>,
Jeff Garzik <gar...@havoc.gtf.org>
Lines: 39
On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:37, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > Take your closed mind elsewhere. I'm pretty sure Linus has more sense
> > than to apply this patch.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> Like it or not, I personally use BK. I don't use CVS, and I don't use
> subversion.
>
> If anybody wants to maintain his own kernel, feel free to remove the
> documentation on how to interact with _me_. In such a kernel, those docs
> would obviously be meaningless.
>
> In fact, Daniel, if you had bothered to just even grep for CVS, you would
> have noticed that we've had CVS information for some other subprojects
> too, because _they_ happen to use CVS. Would you argue for removal of the
> CVS information in Documentation/filesystems/jfs.txt file?
>
> And if not, then you're a hypocritical bastard with a religious agenda.
Err, and if I to argue for it then I'm not? That's easy I argue for it.
Do you think the jfs team will object?
Anyway, that was not serious, I will not argue for the removal of
information on how to use CVS, and gpl'd tool, from the tree. Even though
I think the tree would be better off without it. This is not an issue.
A steady slide toward proprietary tools and behind-the-scenes development
in cathedral-style is an issue. This is not the Linux I knew, or thought
I knew, it is more like FreeBSD.
--
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20020420174422.00ad1390@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk>
X-Sender: ai...@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:00:15 +0200
From: Anton Altaparmakov <ai...@cantab.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
In-Reply-To: <E16yb92-0000Tk-00@starship>
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020420170907.06e87550@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk>
<5.1.0.14.2.20020420170907.06e87550@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> <E16yb92-0000Tk-00@starship>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.424.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mailgate.org!bofh.it!robomod
X-Original-Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>,
linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 17:51:49 +0100
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>
Lines: 56
At 17:21 19/04/02, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:13, Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
> > Daniel,
> >
> > This is not documentation for bitkeeper but how to use bitkeeper
> > effectively for kernel development. It happens to be DAMN USEFULL
> > documentation at that for anyone wanting to use bitkeeper for kernel
> > development so IMO it fully belongs in the kernel. Just like the
> > SubmittingPatches document does, too. Or are you going to remove that
> as well?
>
>By that logic, we should also include the lkml FAQ in the kernel tree. Should
>we?
The lkml FAQ is aimed at users, not developers. The bitkeeper and the
SubmittingPatches document are aimed at developers. I see a fundamental
difference here...
> > If you don't want to use bitkeeper you don't need to read this
> > documentation. Just ignore it and stick with what is SubmittingPatches
> > document.
> >
> > What's your problem?
>
>I am worried that a creeping takeover of the Linux hitherto-successful
>development process is in progress, that concensus on this topic has not been
>achieved, and that there is a split coming. That would not be good.
>
>As always, what I do is in the interest of Linux and freedom. That interest
>is not served by driving a wedge firmly between two groups of Linux
>developers.
>I hope you understand that I am a *moderate* with respect to this issue.
The fact that some developers use bitkeeper has no effect on other
developers. Well ok, it means that the bk using developers can work faster
but that is not at issue here...
I don't see why there should be any kind of split or anything like that.
Everything continues as before. It's just that some developers now have a
much easier life...
Anton
--
"I've not lost my mind. It's backed up on tape somewhere." - Unknown
--
Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cantab.net> (replace at with @)
Linux NTFS Maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.openprojects.net
WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:10:05 +0200
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
In-Reply-To: <E16ybKQ-0000U9-00@starship>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0204200942480.11450-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.622.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.infostrada.it!bofh.it!robomod
References: <E16ybKQ-0000U9-00@starship>
X-Original-Cc: Jeff Garzik <gar...@havoc.gtf.org>,
Roman Zippel <zip...@linux-m68k.org>, <linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org>
X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 09:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>
Lines: 41
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> No I do not. Read the post. I suggested placing the documentation on
> kernel.org, on your site, or on bitmover.com where it belongs.
That was not what your patch did.
> (And there you may have an argument that would satisfy me. However, it
> is not me I'm worried about. It is the other kernel developers who are
> silently seething at this situation. Yes they are, use your ears.)
I would suggest that if you are silently seething about the fact that a
commercial product can do something better than a free one, how about
_doing_ something about it?
Quite frankly, I don't _want_ people using Linux for ideological reasons.
I think ideology sucks. This world would be a much better place if people
had less ideology, and a whole lot more "I do this because it's FUN and
because others might find it useful, not because I got religion".
Would I prefer to use a tool that didn't have any restrictions on it for
kernel maintenance? Yes. But since no such tool exists, and since I'm
personally not very interested in writing one, _and_ since I don't have
any hangups about using the right tool for the job, I use BitKeeper.
As to why the docs are in the kernel sources rather than on any web-sites:
it's simply because I don't even _have_ a web page of my own (I've long
since forgotten the password to my old helsinki.fi account ;), and I have
absolutely no interest in web page design. So when I got tired of
explaining how to use BK, I asked Jeff to just send me a patch so that I
could point people to the only thing I _do_ care about, ie the kernel
sources.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Message-ID: <3CC19FD9.1D3F8168@linux-m68k.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:10:09 +0200
From: Roman Zippel <zip...@linux-m68k.org>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.18 i686)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204200921000.389-100000@dlang.diginsite.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.21.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mailgate.org!bofh.it!robomod
X-Original-Cc: Jeff Garzik <gar...@havoc.gtf.org>,
Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>, linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:05:29 +0200
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: David Lang <dl...@diginsite.com>
Lines: 24
Hi,
David Lang wrote:
> If they start to be tools that are used to submit changes to the kernel
> then yes they should be included.
"start"? People used other source management system already before bk.
> remember that the reason for the bitkeeper documentation is to help people
> setup a tree that linux (and others) can pull from, not to help people
> setup their own tree just for them to hack on.
The problem is that this suggest, bk would be the choice for kernel
development or even usage. They are lots of kernel projects, which use
cvs, but noone before considered submitting extensive cvs documentation
into the kernel.
bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:10:10 +0200
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2]
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020420170907.06e87550@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk>
<5.1.0.14.2.20020420174422.00ad1390@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020420174422.00ad1390@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Message-ID: <E16ybpZ-0000V4-00@starship>
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.688.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!
newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
news.mailgate.org!bofh.it!robomod
X-Original-Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>,
linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 19:05:52 +0200
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Anton Altaparmakov <ai...@cantab.net>
Lines: 31
On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:51, you wrote:
> The fact that some developers use bitkeeper has no effect on other
> developers.
On the contrary, I think it has divided the kernel developers firmly into
two classes: the "ins" and the "outs".
> Well ok, it means that the bk using developers can work faster
> but that is not at issue here...
Oh I don't disagree at all. Bitkeeper is a big improvement over what
existed before. But it is proprietary. Which other tool in the tool chain
is proprietary?
Heck, it's not even that proprietary. As far as I know I can still download
the source. But... looking at those files sitting in the Documentation
directory, it looks to me like a big old Marlbourough[TM] ad.
> I don't see why there should be any kind of split or anything like that.
> Everything continues as before. It's just that some developers now have a
> much easier life...
And some have a more difficult one. So it goes.
--
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:20:05 +0200
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
In-Reply-To: <E16ybpZ-0000V4-00@starship>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0204201006280.11450-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.30.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!
newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!bofh.it!robomod
References: <E16ybpZ-0000V4-00@starship>
X-Original-Cc: Anton Altaparmakov <ai...@cantab.net>,
<linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org>
X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 10:09:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>
Lines: 14
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> And some have a more difficult one. So it goes.
How?
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:30:06 +0200
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
In-Reply-To: <3CC19FD9.1D3F8168@linux-m68k.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0204201010220.11450-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.724.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.infostrada.it!bofh.it!robomod
References: <3CC19FD9.1D3F8168@linux-m68k.org>
X-Original-Cc: David Lang <dl...@diginsite.com>,
Jeff Garzik <gar...@havoc.gtf.org>,
Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>,
<linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org>
X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 10:16:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Roman Zippel <zip...@linux-m68k.org>
Lines: 25
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Roman Zippel wrote:
>
> They are lots of kernel projects, which use cvs, but noone before
> considered submitting extensive cvs documentation into the kernel.
More importantly, there was no way in hell I would synchronize with a CVS
tree, so CVS was a non-entity as far as patch submittal was concerned.
The BK documentation is _nothing_ more than a alternative to
"SubmittingPatches".
Anyway, I'm not going to discuss this any more. If somebody has actual
construcive ideas about trying to improve other tools or putting the BK
docs in some place that is equally obvious and easily available for all
parties but somehow "less disturbing" to people with a weak stomach, go
for it. But I'm not interested in yet another religious whine-war.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:30:09 +0200
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2]
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0204200942480.11450-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0204200942480.11450-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Message-ID: <E16yc0t-0000VL-00@starship>
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.686.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!colt.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!
t-online.de!bofh.it!robomod
X-Original-Cc: Jeff Garzik <gar...@havoc.gtf.org>,
Roman Zippel <zip...@linux-m68k.org>, <linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org>
X-Original-Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 19:17:34 +0200
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>
Lines: 62
On Saturday 20 April 2002 18:56, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >
> > No I do not. Read the post. I suggested placing the documentation on
> > kernel.org, on your site, or on bitmover.com where it belongs.
>
> That was not what your patch did.
Oh, please show me how and I will do it gladly. I just don't know how to
make diff+patch do that.
> > (And there you may have an argument that would satisfy me. However, it
> > is not me I'm worried about. It is the other kernel developers who are
> > silently seething at this situation. Yes they are, use your ears.)
>
> I would suggest that if you are silently seething about the fact that a
> commercial product can do something better than a free one,
You got that right.
> how about _doing_ something about it?
However, first I personally do not want to start that project. Firstly, I
do personally like Larry and do not want to be part of a horde bent on
tearing down his business. There are after all, plenty of genuinely nasty
things out there to attack, attacking Larry as *way* down my list. More
importantly, my time is better spent improving Linux.
> Quite frankly, I don't _want_ people using Linux for ideological reasons.
> I think ideology sucks. This world would be a much better place if people
> had less ideology, and a whole lot more "I do this because it's FUN and
> because others might find it useful, not because I got religion".
That's the point. It is not fun to see the whole thing start tearing itself
apart. Fun is being on the winning side. Fun is not dealing with a lot of
stressed out people with agendas.
> Would I prefer to use a tool that didn't have any restrictions on it for
> kernel maintenance? Yes. But since no such tool exists, and since I'm
> personally not very interested in writing one, _and_ since I don't have
> any hangups about using the right tool for the job, I use BitKeeper.
I use it too. I do not think it belongs in the tree, especially not with its
own directory. My point, pure and simple.
> As to why the docs are in the kernel sources rather than on any web-sites:
> it's simply because I don't even _have_ a web page of my own (I've long
> since forgotten the password to my old helsinki.fi account ;), and I have
> absolutely no interest in web page design. So when I got tired of
> explaining how to use BK, I asked Jeff to just send me a patch so that I
> could point people to the only thing I _do_ care about, ie the kernel
> sources.
But did you think it might be controversial?
--
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Message-ID: <3CC1A31B.AC03136D@linux-m68k.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:30:13 +0200
From: Roman Zippel <zip...@linux-m68k.org>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.18 i686)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
References: <E16ya3u-0000RG-00@starship> <20020420115233.A617@havoc.gtf.org>
<3CC19470.ACE2EFA1@linux-m68k.org> <20020420122541.B2093@havoc.gtf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.844.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mailgate.org!bofh.it!robomod
X-Original-Cc: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>, linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:19:23 +0200
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Jeff Garzik <gar...@havoc.gtf.org>
Lines: 20
Hi,
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Daniel disagrees with the content of the speech in
> Documentation/BK-usage, based on his ideology. And he attempted to
> restrict the dissemination of that speech. What is the definition
> of censorship again?
Maybe I was to subtle, but your censorship argument is simply bullshit.
A link to the information is completely sufficient. The only question
is, whether the information is relevant for kernel development and most
of it is only bk documentation.
bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:40:06 +0200
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2]
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0204201006280.11450-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0204201006280.11450-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Message-ID: <E16ycFR-0000Vg-00@starship>
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.782.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mailgate.org!bofh.it!robomod
X-Original-Cc: Anton Altaparmakov <ai...@cantab.net>,
<linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org>
X-Original-Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 19:32:36 +0200
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>
Lines: 28
On Saturday 20 April 2002 19:09, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >
> > And some have a more difficult one. So it goes.
>
> How?
Those who now chose to carry out their development using the patch+email
method, and prefer to submit everything for discussion on lkml before it
gets included are now largely out of the loop. Things just seem to *appear*
in the tree now, without much fanfare. That's my impression.
Rather than Linux development becoming more open, as I'd hoped with the
advent of Bitkeeper, it seems to be turning more in the direction of
becoming a closed club. This may be fun if you're a member of the club.
Ah well, I'm a 'sorta' club member, why should I complain? All the same,
I feel that something we all seemed to be headed towards with unity of
purpose is somehow becoming more elusive. Being attacked personally for
having this feeling does not help.
--
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:40:08 +0200
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
In-Reply-To: <E16yc0t-0000VL-00@starship>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204201023490.19512-100000@home.transmeta.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.486.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.infostrada.it!bofh.it!robomod
References: <E16yc0t-0000VL-00@starship>
X-Original-Cc: Jeff Garzik <gar...@havoc.gtf.org>,
Roman Zippel <zip...@linux-m68k.org>, <linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org>
X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 10:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>
Lines: 32
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> But did you think it might be controversial?
Ehh, the documentaion? Nope, I didn't really think _that_ part would be
controversial.
The change to BK? I sure as hell knew that was going to be "interesting",
yes absolutely. After all, it had been discussed at places like the kernel
summit etc.
But hey - I've never really cared about what other people think about what
I do. If I had, I'd have given up on Linux when Tanenbaum ridiculed it. Or
I wouldn't have done the big dentry change (which was a total disaster in
some peoples minds) in 2.1.x. Or the VM changeover in the middle of 2.4.x.
Or a million other things.
I do what _I_ think is right for the kernel, and while I tend to poll
people and listen to them, when the sh*t hits the fan it is _my_ decision.
You can't please everybody. And usually if you _try_ to please everybody,
the end result is one big mess.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 19:50:13 +0200
From: Larry McVoy <l...@bitmover.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Message-ID: <20020420104141.A29646@work.bitmover.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy <l...@work.bitmover.com>,
Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>, linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
References: <E16ya3u-0000RG-00@starship>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <E16ya3u-0000RG-00@starship>; from phillips@bonn-fries.net
on Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 05:12:33PM +0200
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.348.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!
news.mailgate.org!bofh.it!robomod
X-Original-Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>,
linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 10:41:41 -0700
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>
Lines: 52
Oh, my. A couple of thoughts:
a) if it would ease the incredible silent (?) seething anguish of Daniel and
others, I'd be happy to post a copy of Jeff's docs on the bitkeeper.com
website someplace and you could replace the patch with a pointer to that.
Seems silly but if it makes the uproar go away...
b) To all of the "silently seething" folks, build a better answer for
free and the kernel team will switch in a heartbeat. How about you
think of BitKeeper as a stepping stone, a temporary thing until a
better answer appears? It doesn't even have to be better, just good
enough.
We built BK to make the key people more efficient. To some extent, it
is doing that. We'll keep trying to make it help make those people more
efficient. That's *good* for the kernel. Which was always the goal.
I'm terribly sorry that this product space doesn't generate enough
consulting business that it can support itself in a politically correct
way, but it doesn't. Get over it. You either get crap tools or you get
tools that have a business model. In this space, the GPL doesn't work,
you need some other way to pay for the work.
If you don't agree, by all means, feel free to *prove* me wrong by
designing, implementing, and supporting a better (or as good)
answer. That is what Linus has said, and I agree, and the "silently
seething" folks need to either put up or go back to being silent.
A thing to keep in mind is that there are a large number of talkers,
people who spend their time flaming but very little of their time writing
useful code. Those people seem to have the most time to argue about
licenses. There are other people who spend their time writing code,
useful code. The goal is to help the second, smaller, group.
BitKeeper seems to make that second group more productive. And it happily
allows for the license haters to keep on working the way they used to,
at the same speed as they used to. Daniel raised the point that BK has
created the "ins" and the "outs". That's not quite right, it's a question
of "efficient" versus "not quite so efficient". Yeah, it has the effect
of creating an "in" group, but that is because it is easier to work that
way, not because of any evil plan to take over the world with BK.
To repeat: if http://www.bitkeeper.com/kernel-howto.html or something
like that makes you happier, I'll do that immediately.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 20:00:12 +0200
From: Larry McVoy <l...@bitmover.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Message-ID: <20020420105125.B29646@work.bitmover.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy <l...@work.bitmover.com>,
Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>,
Anton Altaparmakov <ai...@cantab.net>, linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0204201006280.11450-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
<E16ycFR-0000Vg-00@starship>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <E16ycFR-0000Vg-00@starship>; from phillips@bonn-fries.net
on Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 07:32:36PM +0200
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.825.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!
newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
nntp.infostrada.it!bofh.it!robomod
X-Original-Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>,
Anton Altaparmakov <ai...@cantab.net>, linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 10:51:25 -0700
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>
Lines: 53
On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 07:32:36PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Saturday 20 April 2002 19:09, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > >
> > > And some have a more difficult one. So it goes.
> >
> > How?
>
> Those who now chose to carry out their development using the patch+email
> method, and prefer to submit everything for discussion on lkml before it
> gets included are now largely out of the loop. Things just seem to *appear*
> in the tree now, without much fanfare. That's my impression.
>
> Rather than Linux development becoming more open, as I'd hoped with the
> advent of Bitkeeper, it seems to be turning more in the direction of
> becoming a closed club. This may be fun if you're a member of the club.
You are sort of right and sort of wrong. The changes are mostly ending
up in some BK tree and Linus pulls from that tree. Most of the trees
are on bkbits.net (there are about 130 different ones at last count).
The problem is that there is not an easy way to get a handle on what is
in Linus' tree and what is not, and it's just insane to ask people to
sit around and diff the trees even if BK does make that process somewhat
easier.
An obvious improvement would be to have an "overview" web page which showed
you the list of changes not present in Linus' tree but present in any of
the other trees. Probably sorted by tree so you could see
linuxusb.bkbits.net/linux-2.5
37 changesets (click here for details)
gkernel.bkbits.net/vm
12 changesets (click here for details)
Etc.
If you dump the licensing discussion and think about how BK could help
you, you can see we are half to an improvement over the "mail to the
list" model. The problem I had with the "mail to the list" model was
that it was easy to miss something and then not realized that you
had missed it. Now a lot of that stuff is ending up on bkbits.net
and if there was a way to say "tell me everything that is there but
not here", that would be a distinct improvement, it means that the
"mail" is archived and you can find it when you want it.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 20:00:13 +0200
From: Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
In-Reply-To: <E16ycFR-0000Vg-00@starship>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0204201039130.19512-100000@home.transmeta.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.495.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mailgate.org!bofh.it!robomod
References: <E16ycFR-0000Vg-00@starship>
X-Original-Cc: Anton Altaparmakov <ai...@cantab.net>,
<linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org>
X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 10:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>
Lines: 46
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > And some have a more difficult one. So it goes.
> >
> > How?
>
> Those who now chose to carry out their development using the patch+email
> method, and prefer to submit everything for discussion on lkml before it
> gets included are now largely out of the loop. Things just seem to *appear*
> in the tree now, without much fanfare. That's my impression.
I don't buy that - I'm not getting changes from any new magical BK "men in
black". The patches are the same kind they always were, the last few
entries in my changelog are now the x86-64 merge (which was half a meg,
and yes it wasn't posted on linux-kernel, but no, it never was before BK
either), and before that the extensively discussed SSE register content
leak patch.
HOWEVER, the fact that you _feel_ like that is clearly a fact.
Any suggestions on how to make the process _appear_ less intimidating?
Note that one thing that I had hoped BK would do for me, but that hasn't
happened because I'm a lazy bastard and I'm bad at doing automated scripts
is to do dialy snapshots as patches (getting rid of the "-pre" kernels,
since they don't actually add any information except act as update
points), and also send out a changelog daily to the kernel mailing list.
That is something that is one of the big _points_ to using source control,
yet because I don't need it personally I've never gotten around to writing
those scripts.
That would actually make the development process MORE open than it was
before BK, and might make even non-BK people appreciate BK more simply
because there is a real point to it.
Comments? Anybody want to hack up a script to do this?
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 20:20:08 +0200
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2]
References: <E16ya3u-0000RG-00@starship> <20020420104141.A29646@work.bitmover.com>
In-Reply-To: <20020420104141.A29646@work.bitmover.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Message-ID: <E16ycnE-0000WN-00@starship>
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.496.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.mailgate.org!bofh.it!robomod
X-Original-Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>,
linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:07:30 +0200
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Larry McVoy <l...@bitmover.com>
Lines: 70
On Saturday 20 April 2002 19:41, Larry McVoy wrote:
> Oh, my. A couple of thoughts:
>
> a) if it would ease the incredible silent (?) seething anguish of Daniel and
> others, I'd be happy to post a copy of Jeff's docs on the bitkeeper.com
> website someplace and you could replace the patch with a pointer to that.
> Seems silly but if it makes the uproar go away...
>
> b) To all of the "silently seething" folks, build a better answer for
> free and the kernel team will switch in a heartbeat. How about you
> think of BitKeeper as a stepping stone, a temporary thing until a
> better answer appears? It doesn't even have to be better, just good
> enough.
There ya go, now this is reasonable. Personally, I do not want to step on
your stones.
> We built BK to make the key people more efficient. To some extent, it
> is doing that. We'll keep trying to make it help make those people more
> efficient. That's *good* for the kernel. Which was always the goal.
Yes, but not *entirely* good, because it is driving some developers into
isolation, or at the best, quiet resentment. This does not qualify as 'best
for the kernel'. A slight dose of moderation here would strike that happy
medium that seems to be slipping away. No, not you, Larry, this is one of
your moderate moments, I think I am going to bronze this email.
> I'm terribly sorry that this product space doesn't generate enough
> consulting business that it can support itself in a politically correct
> way, but it doesn't. Get over it. You either get crap tools or you get
> tools that have a business model. In this space, the GPL doesn't work,
> you need some other way to pay for the work.
Um, no Larry, but that is something we can discuss at our leisure.
Executive summary: life does not consist of business models alone. Much
great art has nothing to do with business models. Oh for sure, some
artists are fine businessmen but it's rare. Usually they just get by,
enough to satisfy their immediate needs and produce immortal works for
your - our - pleasure. Indeed, there is more to life that business models.
> If you don't agree, by all means, feel free to *prove* me wrong by
> designing, implementing, and supporting a better (or as good)
> answer. That is what Linus has said, and I agree, and the "silently
> seething" folks need to either put up or go back to being silent.
You don't *really* want me to do that. I thought you had a business model.
Surely it does not consist of 'goad the open source community into replacing
my product with a better, free one, so I can retire in poverty'.
> BitKeeper seems to make that second group more productive. And it happily
> allows for the license haters to keep on working the way they used to,
> at the same speed as they used to. Daniel raised the point that BK has
> created the "ins" and the "outs". That's not quite right, it's a question
> of "efficient" versus "not quite so efficient". Yeah, it has the effect
> of creating an "in" group, but that is because it is easier to work that
> way, not because of any evil plan to take over the world with BK.
>
> To repeat: if http://www.bitkeeper.com/kernel-howto.html or something
> like that makes you happier, I'll do that immediately.
It would be most excellent, and you will get a case of good Berlin lager
out of it. Err, maybe life is about business after all...
--
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
From: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 20:30:12 +0200
X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.3.2]
References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0204201006280.11450-100000@penguin.transmeta.com>
<E16ycFR-0000Vg-00@starship> <20020420105125.B29646@work.bitmover.com>
In-Reply-To: <20020420105125.B29646@work.bitmover.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Message-ID: <E16yd71-0000X4-00@starship>
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.962.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.infostrada.it!bofh.it!robomod
X-Original-Cc: Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>,
Anton Altaparmakov <ai...@cantab.net>, linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 20:27:58 +0200
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Larry McVoy <l...@bitmover.com>
Lines: 35
On Saturday 20 April 2002 19:51, Larry McVoy wrote:
> If you dump the licensing discussion and think about how BK could help
> you, you can see we are half to an improvement over the "mail to the
> list" model. The problem I had with the "mail to the list" model was
> that it was easy to miss something and then not realized that you
> had missed it.
True, but it also seemed to create a certain energy that now seems to be
slipping away. Maybe this is just called 'maturity', I don't know. Now,
my original objection was *only* to the inclusion of the Bitkeeper
documentation in the kernel tree. A well-known developer who has chosen
to stay out of the discussion - perhaps by reason of being asleep - used
the term 'bitkeeper mafia'. That's not a good sign. At this juncture, a
little moderation, as you've shown, could do a lot to mitigate that
perception.
Then it would be back to the usual programming: how to make it all better.
> Now a lot of that stuff is ending up on bkbits.net
> and if there was a way to say "tell me everything that is there but
> not here", that would be a distinct improvement, it means that the
> "mail" is archived and you can find it when you want it.
The missing part is watching the mail go by. It's the discourse, where
has it gone? What happened to the times when patches were actually
discussed before going into the tree? Can we somehow have that and
bitkeeper too... and a fairy castle...
--
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 23:10:08 +0200
From: Jeff Garzik <gar...@havoc.gtf.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Message-ID: <20020420170348.A14186@havoc.gtf.org>
References: <E16ya3u-0000RG-00@starship> <20020420115233.A617@havoc.gtf.org>
<3CC19470.ACE2EFA1@linux-m68k.org> <20020420122541.B2093@havoc.gtf.org>
<3CC1A31B.AC03136D@linux-m68k.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <3CC1A31B.AC03136D@linux-m68k.org>; from zippel@linux-m68k.org
on Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 07:19:23PM +0200
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.163.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!
newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!
nntp.infostrada.it!bofh.it!robomod
X-Original-Cc: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>, linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 17:03:48 -0400
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Roman Zippel <zip...@linux-m68k.org>
Lines: 51
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 07:19:23PM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> > Daniel disagrees with the content of the speech in
> > Documentation/BK-usage, based on his ideology. And he attempted to
> > restrict the dissemination of that speech. What is the definition
> > of censorship again?
>
> Maybe I was to subtle, but your censorship argument is simply bullshit.
> A link to the information is completely sufficient.
What was Daniel's action? Remove the text. Nothing else. Sure, he
suggested other options, but he did attempt to implement them? No.
He just implied that people need to step up and do this work for him.
Daniel attempted to remove speech he disgreed with from wide
distribution -- on distro CDs, kernel.org mirrors, etc. I am hoping
it is plainly obvious that removing a doc from one of the mostly
widely distributed open source projects reduces the doc's distribution
dramatically. _That_ is a form of censorship, just like buying out
printing presses, to silence them, in the old days. It's still
around... just progressively harder to obtain.
> The only question
> is, whether the information is relevant for kernel development and most
> of it is only bk documentation.
And the answer is, it is BK documentation written for kernel developers
by kernel developers, with the intention of being a SubmittingPatches
document for BK users. Very relevant to kernel devel. This relevance
was proved by its origin -- emails bouncing back and forth, generally
originating by Linus, CC'ing me, asking me for the emails I had
already sent to other hackers, describing kernel development under BK.
After the info had been separately requested multiple times, it
got turned into a document -- the BK version of SubmittingPatches.
After that doc was requested multiple times, it went to the same
place where SubmittingPatches is stored.
Jeff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 23:40:10 +0200
From: Skip Ford <skip.f...@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Mail-Followup-To: Jeff Garzik <gar...@havoc.gtf.org>,
linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
References: <E16ya3u-0000RG-00@starship> <20020420115233.A617@havoc.gtf.org>
<3CC19470.ACE2EFA1@linux-m68k.org> <20020420122541.B2093@havoc.gtf.org>
<3CC1A31B.AC03136D@linux-m68k.org> <20020420170348.A14186@havoc.gtf.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <20020420170348.A14186@havoc.gtf.org>; from garzik@havoc.gtf.org
on Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 05:03:48PM -0400
Message-ID:
<20020420213446.ZCGU13286.out019.verizon.net@pool-141-150-235-204.delv.east.verizon.net>
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.224.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.infostrada.it!bofh.it!robomod
X-Original-Cc: linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 17:36:45 -0400
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Jeff Garzik <gar...@havoc.gtf.org>
Lines: 28
Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> And the answer is, it is BK documentation written for kernel developers
> by kernel developers, with the intention of being a SubmittingPatches
> document for BK users. Very relevant to kernel devel. This relevance
> was proved by its origin -- emails bouncing back and forth, generally
> originating by Linus, CC'ing me, asking me for the emails I had
> already sent to other hackers, describing kernel development under BK.
That's not true. Section 1 of 'SubmittingPatches' is entitled
"Creating and Sending Your Change" while section 1 of your
bk bullshit is called "Bitkeeper Concepts."
All of section 1 is an advertisement for using bk...including
directions on how to setup your own clone. Those are _clearly_
bitkeeper directions and have nothing to do with how to submit
patches.
Delete sections 1 & 2 and make section 3 the gist of the document
and _then_ you'll have the bk equivalent of 'SubmittingPatches.'
--
Skip
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 23:50:08 +0200
From: Rik van Riel <r...@conectiva.com.br>
X-X-Sender: r...@imladris.surriel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
In-Reply-To:
<20020420213446.ZCGU13286.out019.verizon.net@pool-141-150-235-204.delv.east.verizon.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L.0204201839380.1960-100000@imladris.surriel.com>
X-Spambait: aardv...@kernelnewbies.org
X-Spammeplease: aardv...@nl.linux.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.912.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
newsfeed.gamma.ru!Gamma.RU!newsfeeder.edisontel.com!bofh.it!robomod
References:
<20020420213446.ZCGU13286.out019.verizon.net@pool-141-150-235-204.delv.east.verizon.net>
X-Original-Cc: Jeff Garzik <gar...@havoc.gtf.org>,
<linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org>
X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:40:11 -0300 (BRT)
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Skip Ford <skip.f...@verizon.net>
Lines: 24
On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Skip Ford wrote:
> All of section 1 is an advertisement for using bk...including
> directions on how to setup your own clone. Those are _clearly_
> bitkeeper directions and have nothing to do with how to submit
> patches.
I'm sure Jeff would be more than happy to include an
advertisement for a free bitkeeper alternative, once
one exists. ;)
regards,
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 01:20:07 +0200
From: Larry McVoy <l...@bitmover.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Message-ID: <20020420161434.B31306@work.bitmover.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy <l...@work.bitmover.com>,
Skip Ford <skip.f...@verizon.net>,
Jeff Garzik <gar...@havoc.gtf.org>, linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
References:
<20020420213446.ZCGU13286.out019.verizon.net@pool-141-150-235-204.delv.east.verizon.net>
<Pine.LNX.4.44L.0204201839380.1960-100000@imladris.surriel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44L.0204201839380.1960-100000@imladris.surriel.com>;
from riel@conectiva.com.br on Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 06:40:11PM -0300
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.660.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
canoe.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.infostrada.it!
bofh.it!robomod
X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 16:14:34 -0700
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Skip Ford <skip.f...@verizon.net>,
Jeff Garzik <gar...@havoc.gtf.org>, linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
Lines: 20
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2002, Skip Ford wrote:
> > All of section 1 is an advertisement for using bk...including
> > directions on how to setup your own clone. Those are _clearly_
> > bitkeeper directions and have nothing to do with how to submit
> > patches.
>
> I'm sure Jeff would be more than happy to include an
> advertisement for a free bitkeeper alternative, once
> one exists. ;)
And the sooner the better. I just read this entire thread and I'm disgusted.
I've seen some lame threads in my day, but this takes the cake.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Message-ID: <3CC201F7.B3AC3FDF@linux-m68k.org>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 02:10:07 +0200
From: Roman Zippel <zip...@linux-m68k.org>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.18 i686)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
References: <E16ya3u-0000RG-00@starship> <20020420115233.A617@havoc.gtf.org>
<3CC19470.ACE2EFA1@linux-m68k.org> <20020420122541.B2093@havoc.gtf.org>
<3CC1A31B.AC03136D@linux-m68k.org> <20020420170348.A14186@havoc.gtf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.790.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.infostrada.it!bofh.it!robomod
X-Original-Cc: Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>, linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 02:04:07 +0200
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Jeff Garzik <gar...@havoc.gtf.org>
Lines: 49
Hi,
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> What was Daniel's action? Remove the text. Nothing else. Sure, he
> suggested other options, but he did attempt to implement them? No.
> He just implied that people need to step up and do this work for him.
He made his intention very clear, you are interpreting something in his
action, that simply isn't there.
> Daniel attempted to remove speech he disgreed with from wide
> distribution -- on distro CDs, kernel.org mirrors, etc. I am hoping
> it is plainly obvious that removing a doc from one of the mostly
> widely distributed open source projects reduces the doc's distribution
> dramatically. _That_ is a form of censorship, just like buying out
> printing presses, to silence them, in the old days. It's still
> around... just progressively harder to obtain.
Censorship requires the means to enforce it and has Daniel this ability?
Could we please stop these "censorship" and "ideology" arguments? In
this context they are simply nonsense.
> And the answer is, it is BK documentation written for kernel developers
> by kernel developers, with the intention of being a SubmittingPatches
> document for BK users. Very relevant to kernel devel. This relevance
> was proved by its origin -- emails bouncing back and forth, generally
> originating by Linus, CC'ing me, asking me for the emails I had
> already sent to other hackers, describing kernel development under BK.
kernel development with bk requires net access and so it's sufficient,
when it's available over the net. On the other hand SubmittingPatches
describes the lowest common denominator, which works with any SCM and
doesn't favour any of them.
Personally I don't care what tools people use, but I'm getting
concerned, when a nonfree tool is advertised as tool of choice for
kernel for development as if there would be no choice. bk has advantages
for distributed development, but beside of this they are alternatives
and we should rather encourage users to try them and to help with the
development of them. But there isn't anything like that, so Joe Hacker
has to think he should use bk as SCM to get his patch into the kernel,
because Linus is using it.
bye, Roman
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 02:20:07 +0200
From: Larry McVoy <l...@bitmover.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree
Message-ID: <20020420171714.A31656@work.bitmover.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Larry McVoy <l...@work.bitmover.com>,
Roman Zippel <zip...@linux-m68k.org>,
Jeff Garzik <gar...@havoc.gtf.org>,
Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>, linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
References: <E16ya3u-0000RG-00@starship> <20020420115233.A617@havoc.gtf.org>
<3CC19470.ACE2EFA1@linux-m68k.org> <20020420122541.B2093@havoc.gtf.org>
<3CC1A31B.AC03136D@linux-m68k.org> <20020420170348.A14186@havoc.gtf.org>
<3CC201F7.B3AC3FDF@linux-m68k.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
In-Reply-To: <3CC201F7.B3AC3FDF@linux-m68k.org>; from zippel@linux-m68k.org
on Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 02:04:07AM +0200
Sender: robo...@news.nic.it
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Approved: robo...@news.nic.it (1.20)
NNTP-Posting-Host: a.123.anti-phl.bofh.it
Newsgroups: linux.kernel
Organization: linux.*_mail_to_news_unidirectional_gateway
Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!
news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.infostrada.it!bofh.it!robomod
X-Original-Cc: Jeff Garzik <gar...@havoc.gtf.org>,
Daniel Phillips <phill...@bonn-fries.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torva...@transmeta.com>, linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 17:17:14 -0700
X-Original-Sender: linux-kernel-ow...@vger.kernel.org
X-Original-To: Roman Zippel <zip...@linux-m68k.org>
Lines: 19
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 02:04:07AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> kernel development with bk requires net access and so it's sufficient,
> when it's available over the net. On the other hand SubmittingPatches
> describes the lowest common denominator, which works with any SCM and
> doesn't favour any of them.
Huh? BK requires no more net access than you require when submitting
a regular patch. You need to be connected to move the bits. Working
disconnected is one of the things BK does best, compare it to any other
tool and you can do far more with BK unconnected, simply because BK
takes the history with you.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|