Re: [PATCH] Remove Bitkeeper documentation from Linux tree

[Jeff Garzik]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:02:04PM +0200, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> Martin Dalecki's IDE patch, gosh, look at all the fun.  It's a non-BK
> patch, let's see if there's a pattern.  Hmm, the next bushy one is "[PATCH]
> zerocopy NFS updated", descending from a traditional patch set.  The next
> one, "[PATCH] IDE TCQ #4" is also a traditional patch.  Hmm, no bitkeeper
> patches showing up yet, I don't think I need to go on.
> 
> There is a clear inverse relationship between the bk-ness of a patch and
> the extent to which it's discussed on lkml.  I don't know what to read into
> that, but it does seem to lend credence to the idea that the bitkeeper
> style of working is not compatible with the idea of community discussion.

Concrete examples, please?

Which patches are the stealth patches?

	Jeff