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]

Message-ID: <20100906045625.GB17212@core.coreip.homeip.net>
Date:	Sun, 5 Sep 2010 21:56:26 -0700
From:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
Cc:	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 04:59:54PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-09-05 at 16:41 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 02:50:47PM -0700, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote:
> > > 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.
> > > 
> > 
> > No, we should not be comparing SCMs at all here but rather 2 competing
> > implementations based on quality of the code. You tried to bring SMC
> > angle in and I am saying that it is BS.
> > 
> 
> Again, without getting into another pointless flamewar,  I think the
> main point here is that a open source project using a distributed
> workflow (like git) has major advantages when it comes to working with a
> larger group of developers than a centralized model (like SVN) does.
> 
> Because being a subsystem maintainer typically involves this type of
> complex workflow involving lots of different parties, git is a tool that
> was created (originally) expressely for a kernel workflow, and for those
> types of people it works really, really well.
> 

You may be surprised but I am aware of subsystem maintainer workflow. I
also am aware that there is not a single workflow and that it varies by
maintainer. For some git is indeed the best tool but others (and I
named a few) might prefer something different.

Once again: should we declare all subsystems that do not use git as
primary SCM be inferior and drop them from the kernel?

> So, please understand that code and project workflow is only one of the
> reasons why TCM/LIO v4 was selected over SCST.   I invite you to take a
> closer look at the RFC Code that has been posted last week if you want
> to get into the nitty-gritty techinical details, which this thread has
> thus far been avoiding.

Yes, I agree that it would be much more productive if you concentrated
on technical details when answering Vlad's questions rather than
branching into immaterial argument over SCM choice.

-- 
Dmitry
--
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/