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. 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. Best, --nab -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
