On Sun, 2010-09-05 at 20:58 -0400, Mark Deneen wrote: > > 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. > Bitkeeper taught Linus by his own admission that there was actually a reason to using a SCM for the kernel to begin with, and helped drive some early git design princables which he also briefly mentioned in the google git talk. So I hardly consider this a mistake looking at it from a historical perspective. > > 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. I am really sorry to hear about SCST's bad timing wrt to the evolution of git, but I hardly see this as an acceptable excuse for poor mainline workflow. > > > 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. > Well, if we are going to start talking about car analogies, then I have one for you.. 8-) Using a centralized SCM for kernel subsystem workflow in the year 2010 in akin to trying to make a modification to a 18,000 RPM capable engine in a Ferrari F1 (eg: Linux Kernel), tuned to run at the *highest* levels of international competition (eg: LKML). But instead of using the tools (git) that where explictely designed the F1 engine by it's creator (eg: Linus aka Enzo Ferrari), you end trying to adjust your F1 engine's killowatt per litre displacement output using a broken FM tuner knob and rusty spare tire jack from a 79' Ford Pinto. 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
