Message-Id: <1283810135.556.238.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org>
Date:	Mon, 06 Sep 2010 14:55:35 -0700
From:	"Nicholas A. Bellinger" <nab@...ux-iscsi.org>
To:	Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@...b.net>
Cc:	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	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 Tue, 2010-09-07 at 01:47 +0400, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
> James Bottomley, on 09/06/2010 02:39 PM 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.
> >
> > Oh, for god's sake children.  Why does every LIO vs SCST discussion turn
> > into a pointless flameware over stuff no-one really cares about?  If
> > none of you has anything substantive to say: don't say it.
> 
> James, sorry, but you can't blame us. I keep asking for clear rules and 
> don't receive much. So, there are speculations and pseudo-rules, which 
> sometimes go to the absurd, as in this SVN vs Git case. No surprise 
> then, that people have risen against this absurd (thanks a lot to them 
> for support!).
> 
> Frankly, in all the situation around Linux SCSI targets I for quite a 
> long time feeling myself as a hero of a Kafka novel. Supposed to be 
> goals are to have the best code doing its job the best, but on practice 
> nobody cares about technical arguments and figuring out which subsystem 
> is the best. Instead, everything lives it own incomprehensible life, 
> where doesn't matter what you are doing, all already long ago decided 
> behind your back and you will never be told why. All accurate statements 
> not heard or, at best, called "handwaving", but dirty public opinion 
> manipulations based on half- and less-than-half- truth have very warn 
> welcome. This atmosphere is unhealthy, really.

Sorry Vlad, but this is simply not the truth.  You have had ample time
to comment on the hundreds of TCM/LIO patches posted to linux-scsi and
lkml over the last years, but you have chosen never to comment on a
*single* one then, or even on a single one now of the dozens that have
been posted in the last 3 weeks while this thread has been lumbering
forward..

So at this point, I will once again to refrain from any non technical
interaction with yourself.  If you have geninue concerns about any of
the TCM/LIO v4 code, then I suggest that you and your devels make them
known from within threads containing [PATCH] and [RFC] tags, because I
will not be bothering with anything that does not contain comments on
creating new or improving existing design and code.

Best,

--nab

--
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