From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [Scst-devel] Fwd: Re: linuxcon 2010... Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 21:56:26 -0700 Message-ID: <20100906045625.GB17212@core.coreip.homeip.net> References: <4C79484B.3090607@vlnb.net> <1283028468.32007.357.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <4C7C18CE.5020103@vlnb.net> <1283204792.32007.448.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <4C7FFD1A.8090509@vlnb.net> <1283459158.5598.143.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <20100905201802.GC18411@core.coreip.homeip.net> <1283723447.556.133.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <20100905234134.GA17212@core.coreip.homeip.net> <1283731194.556.147.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1283731194.556.147.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" Cc: Vladislav Bolkhovitin , James Bottomley , Dirk Meister , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Chetan Loke , Chetan Loke , scst-devel , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Christie , FUJITA Tomonori List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 04:59:54PM -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. > You may be surprised but I am aware of subsystem maintainer workflow. I also am aware that there is not a single workflow and that it varies by maintainer. For some git is indeed the best tool but others (and I named a few) might prefer something different. Once again: should we declare all subsystems that do not use git as primary SCM be inferior and drop them from the kernel? > So, please understand that code and project workflow is only one of the > reasons why TCM/LIO v4 was selected over SCST. I invite you to take a > closer look at the RFC Code that has been posted last week if you want > to get into the nitty-gritty techinical details, which this thread has > thus far been avoiding. Yes, I agree that it would be much more productive if you concentrated on technical details when answering Vlad's questions rather than branching into immaterial argument over SCM choice. -- Dmitry