> Hi Mark, > > I will always be advocating using the best tool for the job in any given > situation. So absoulutely, I would have picked bitkeeper over tarballs > any day of the week 7 years ago, or over SVN if it had existed back > then. I can't say that I agree with this. SVN existed, along with many other open source choices -- the choice of BitKeeper was a mistake. > But again, I think it's an important point that git is a tool that was > made explictly for the linux kernel workflow. Why would a new subsystem > maintainer is participates in the kernel workflow ever use anything > besides git at this point..? Look, I'm not saying that I dislike git. I use it as my SCM here. However, git was in its infancy (or not even around) when SCST was started. It's not like they had a proprietary vendor go cold turkey on them, forcing everyone to another solution. > And sorry, but considering the obvious advantages in terms of workflow > speed and flexibility that git brings to the table for a subsystem > maintainer, calling the choise of SCM a nit-pick item demonstrates a > level certain level of inexperience wrt to mainline kernel workflow. > Which is perfectly OK, but if you really want to understand the issues > at hand in a distributed vs. centrailized SCM model, I strongly suggest > you watch Linus's talk as well. > > Best, > > --nab I'm still calling it a nit-pick. Vlad could switch to git in a short amount of time if he felt so compelled. This is like saying that the quality of a car is based on the style of garage it is parked in. Kind Regards, Mark Deneen -- 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
