Re: [Scst-devel] Fwd: Re: linuxcon 2010...

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@suse.de>]

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