BK, deltas, snapshots and fate of -pre...
Quoted 5 lines · Daniel Phillips
True, but I'm a contributor and so I have an interest in it. It would be better if you didn't pursue that line of argument.
How about the URL?
Why we have kernel tarball at all, then? Just put URLs where you can download different pieces of kernel, and we are done. You finally solved problem how to help users who do not want to download different arch subdirectories, or different drivers, as they do not need them for their hardware, and downloading them takes a precious time.
As there is definitely at least one developer who uses Bitkeeper, and as this information is seen useful at least by some people (me including), I see no reason why this information should not be part of kernel.
Otherwise we must remove ncpfs and matroxfb from the kernel immediately, as they both use proprietary protocol/interface, and there is available only one vendor on the world who provides/supports this protocol/interface (Novell resp. Matrox), and matroxfb documentation is just hidden advertising of Matrox corp.
Best regards,
Petr Vandrovec [email protected]
Petr Vandrovec Awoke this dragon, who will now respond:
Quoted 3 lines
Why we have kernel tarball at all, then? Just put URLs where you can download different pieces of kernel, and we are done. You finally
Actually, the kernel tarball is full of crap we dont need.
Sooner or later its going to get too big and be split up into
core kernel
drivers (drivers/net, drivers/video etc.)
arch specifics
documentation
all for seperate download.
Quoted 8 lines · Ian Molton
Petr Vandrovec Awoke this dragon, who will now respond:
Quoted 3 lines
Why we have kernel tarball at all, then? Just put URLs where you can download different pieces of kernel, and we are done. You finally
Actually, the kernel tarball is full of crap we dont need.
Quoted 8 lines
Sooner or later its going to get too big and be split up into
core kernel
drivers (drivers/net,drivers/videoetc.)
arch specifics
documentationall for seperate download.
That is never going to happen, at least not as long as Linus is the kernel maintainer. I believe he has said so more than once before...
One of the reasons being that such an act would make changing global APIs a virtual impossiblity. And such changes happen often in Linux during the unstable kernel series. And those changes are good changes... Otherwise we will end up with Windows having backwards compatibility with DOS for virtually all eternity...
Best regards,
Anton
Signature · 5 lines
"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/
Hi,
Could please someone have this patch applied instead of arguing all day and all of the night?
Regards,
Thunder
bk-kernel-howto.txt renamed from bk-kernel-howto.txt~ +8 -0
@@ -15,6 +15,14 @@ "bk help <command>" or in X "bk helptool <command>" for reference documentation. + Also, BitKeeper is not free software. You may use it for free, subject + to the licensing rules (bk help bkl will display them), but it is + not open source. If you feel strongly about 100% free software + tool chain, then don't use BitKeeper. Linus has repeatedly stated + that he will continue to accept and produce traditional "diff -Nur" + style patches. It is explicitly not a requirement that you use + BitKeeper to do kernel development, people may choose whatever tool + works best for them. BitKeeper Concepts ------------------
Signature · 4 lines
Thunder from the hill.
Not a citizen of any town. Not a citizen of any state.
Not a citizen of any country. Not a citizen of any planet.
Citizen of our universe.Hi,
bk-kernel-howto.txt Mon Apr 22 12:26:11 2002
Quoted 3 lines · Thunder from the hill
bk-kernel-howto.txt Mon Apr 22 12:26:11 2002 renamed from bk-kernel-howto.txt~ Mon Apr 22 12:26:50 2002 +0
-0@@ -15,6 +15,14 @@
I'd prefer this to be a separate document (e.g. README) and not somewhere inbetween.
bk-kernel-howto.txt Mon Apr 22 12:26:11 2002 line 16
Quoted 2 lines
bk-kernel-howto.txt Mon Apr 22 12:26:11 2002 renamed from bk-kernel-howto.txt~ Mon Apr 22 12:26:50 2002 +2
-0+ Also, BitKeeper is not free software. You may use it for free, subject + to the licensing rules (bk help bkl will display them), but it is
^^^^^^^^^^^
At that point it's already too late, the user must have the chance to read this, before he installs bk.
bk-kernel-howto.txt Mon Apr 22 12:26:11 2002 line 18
Quoted 2 lines
bk-kernel-howto.txt Mon Apr 22 12:26:11 2002 renamed from bk-kernel-howto.txt~ Mon Apr 22 12:26:50 2002 +2
-0+ not open source. If you feel strongly about 100% free software + tool chain, then don't use BitKeeper. Linus has repeatedly stated
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That has a "for all these idiots, that don't want to understand" aftertaste, I'm certain Linus doesn't want to imply that.
bye, Roman
Quoted 2 lines · Roman Zippel
bk-kernel-howto.txt line 19
Quoted 2 lines
bk-kernel-howto.txt renamed from bk-kernel-howto.txt~ +2
-0+ Also, BitKeeper is not free software. You may use it for free, subject + to the licensing rules (bk help bkl will display them), but it is
- to the licensing rules (bk help bkl will display them), but it is
+ to the licensing rules (http://www.bitkeeper.com/manpages/bk-bkl-1.html)
Signature · 2 lines
--- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm