On Sun, 2010-09-05 at 16:59 -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. 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. Since patches into SCSI go over the mailing list for review and integration (and running checkpatch.pl on ... this would be a hint), I don't really give a toss how they're generated. > So, please understand that code and project workflow is only one of the > reasons why TCM/LIO v4 was selected over SCST. It isn't yet ... your code still has to be reviewed properly. My preferred reviewer is currently honing his skills on a diet of raw beef in Argentina, but hopefully he'll get around to it shortly. James -- 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
