Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Richard Gooch]

Daniel Phillips writes:
> 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?

No. A pointer to the lkml FAQ is sufficient.

				Regards,

					Richard....
Permanent: [e-mail]
Current:   [e-mail]