From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Deneen Subject: Re: [Scst-devel] Fwd: Re: linuxcon 2010... Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 19:13:52 -0400 Message-ID: References: <4C7421FB.2060007@vlnb.net> <1282685014.32007.51.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <4C76CA57.3050405@vlnb.net> <1282857806.32007.175.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1283723447.556.133.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Nicholas A. Bellinger" Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , Mike Christie , Vladislav Bolkhovitin , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, Chetan Loke , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, FUJITA Tomonori , James Bottomley , scst-devel List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Nicholas A. Bellinger wrote: > > I think the difference between what Linus says and what he actually > means in the above video could be easily misinterpreted, well especia= lly > for some non-english speaking folks. =A0But I am certainly glad to se= e > that a russian translation is also available for this google git talk > for those who really want try to understand his reasons (and technica= l > requirements) for what he is saying. > > So as to the specifics about why git is really the only right SCM cho= ice > for mainline target mode maintainership, it really all comes down to > workflow. =A0Does your SCM allow other people to easily and without-p= ain > track your upstream subsystem tree changes and 'rebase' as necessary = for > their patch series you make improvements..? =A0 If we are talking abo= ut > say, a single standalone driver being developed against mainline, the= n > sure using a SCM like CVS or SVN is perfectly acceptable when you pus= h > to someone upstream like gregkh or akpm via email patch attachments. > > However, if we are talking about a subsystem maintainer workflow that > requires many different people to track your subsystem tree for their > own drivers and new feature bits, not being able to keep local branch= es > for these level developers makes their life excruciatingly painful an= d > unpleasent as they attempt to pull new upstream changes, especially w= hen > the speed of new upstream development is moving quickly. =A0This rule > applys even more when said subsystem has a greater scope within the > source tree in question. > > 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. > > Best, > > --nab I've been trying to keep my 2 cents out of this, as I am merely an SCST user. Both of you have valid criticisms; the choice of SCM is not one of them. It is nit-picking at best, especially when SCST could switch to git easily if they so desired. Seven years ago, would you be pushing BitKeeper? Kind Regards, Mark Deneen