From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vladislav Bolkhovitin Subject: Re: [Scst-devel] Fwd: Re: linuxcon 2010... Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 23:40:41 +0400 Message-ID: <4C72CEB9.4000008@vlnb.net> References: <4C69653E.6050808@vlnb.net> <1282077040.16098.47.camel@mulgrave.site> <4C6C1DC1.8090208@vlnb.net> <1282164188.10878.22.camel@mulgrave.site> <4C702030.2070306@vlnb.net> <1282423128.3015.35.camel@mulgrave.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:52031 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750881Ab0HWTkr (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:40:47 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Gennadiy Nerubayev Cc: James Bottomley , scst-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Gennadiy Nerubayev, on 08/23/2010 02:10 AM wrote: > I'm not sure if I understand why there is a need for a replacement > target to reuse existing code, and would definitely appreciate a brief > explanation or a pointer to an earlier one. But even that aside, I'm > curious if the criteria for what a replacement target must have for > (at least potential) inclusion into the kernel were ever clearly > outlined in the past. If they were, then there probably would have > been things like interested contenders, deadlines, feature > comparisons, code reviews, and so on, right? A fair public review of SCST code with a fair _public_ comparison without any deals and conspiracy behind our back is, basically, all we are asking. Let the best code win. Vlad