linux-kernel - Re: [Scst-devel] Fwd: Re: linuxcon 2010...

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 5 Sep 2010 19:13:52 -0400
From:	Mark Deneen <mdeneen@...il.com>
To:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
Cc:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>,
	Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>,
	linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, Chetan Loke <chetanloke@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
	scst-devel <scst-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Scst-devel] Fwd: Re: linuxcon 2010...

On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger
<nab@...ux-iscsi.org> wrote:
>
> I think the difference between what Linus says and what he actually
> means in the above video could be easily misinterpreted, well especially
> for some non-english speaking folks.  But I am certainly glad to see
> that a russian translation is also available for this google git talk
> for those who really want try to understand his reasons (and technical
> requirements) for what he is saying.
>
> So as to the specifics about why git is really the only right SCM choice
> for mainline target mode maintainership, it really all comes down to
> workflow.  Does your SCM allow other people to easily and without-pain
> track your upstream subsystem tree changes and 'rebase' as necessary for
> their patch series you make improvements..?   If we are talking about
> say, a single standalone driver being developed against mainline, then
> sure using a SCM like CVS or SVN is perfectly acceptable when you push
> to someone upstream like gregkh or akpm via email patch attachments.
>
> However, if we are talking about a subsystem maintainer workflow that
> requires many different people to track your subsystem tree for their
> own drivers and new feature bits, not being able to keep local branches
> for these level developers makes their life excruciatingly painful and
> unpleasent as they attempt to pull new upstream changes, especially when
> the speed of new upstream development is moving quickly.  This rule
> applys even more when said subsystem has a greater scope within the
> source tree in question.
>
> Anyways, if we are going to compare SCM distributed vs. centralized
> workflow in terms of kernel projects, lets please at least compare
> apples to apples here.
>
> Best,
>
> --nab

I've been trying to keep my 2 cents out of this, as I am merely an
SCST user.  Both of you have valid criticisms; the choice of SCM is
not one of them.  It is nit-picking at best, especially when SCST
could switch to git easily if they so desired.

Seven years ago, would you be pushing BitKeeper?

Kind Regards,
Mark Deneen
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/