Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Jeff Garzik <garzik@havoc.gtf.org>]

On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 08:26:58PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On Sunday 21 April 2002 20:15, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 08:13:48PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> > > Linus said:
> > > 
> > > > 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 ;),
> > > 
> > > Larry has offered to host it, so Linus's argument is answered.
> > 
> > These are docs-about-Linus, not docs-about-Larry.
> > 
> > Do you propose to move SubmittingPatches and all info related to CVS, to
> > Larry's web site?
> 
> Which part of 'Larry offered to host it' was not completely clear?
> 
> CVS does not have the license issues.  Red herring.

No, this is, to me, _the_ issue.  And something you keep ignoring.
And proving that you ignored the point of Linus's first post in
this thread.

We have docs describing how kernel developers should merge with Linus.
In your opinion, if those docs describe closed source software,
they should be treated differently than other docs.  Regardless of
relevance.

They _are_ relevant, everyone admits that.  Therefore treating them
differently only introduces additional barriers and violates the
Principle of Least Surprise.

You are, in effect, trying to disallow politically incorrect speech
from the kernel sources.

	Jeff