[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100906211603.GD5863@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 14:16:03 -0700
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
Dirk Meister <dmeister@...-paderborn.de>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, Chetan Loke <chetanloke@...il.com>,
Chetan Loke <generationgnu@...oo.com>,
scst-devel <scst-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>,
FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [Scst-devel] Fwd: Re: linuxcon 2010...
On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 02:50:47PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> 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.
I actually use git to manage my quilt patch tree so that others can work
with me. Don't confuse a scm with a patch management tool, they are two
vastly different things and have no relation to each other here.
And this sub-topic has NOTHING to do with the main issue here, so I
don't know why you are arguing over it. Please take it elsewhere.
thanks,
greg k-h
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists