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

[Vladislav Bolkhovitin <vst@vlnb.net>]

Dmitry Torokhov, on 09/07/2010 04:44 AM wrote:
>> So at this point, I will once again to refrain from any non technical
>> interaction with yourself.  If you have geninue concerns about any of
>> the TCM/LIO v4 code, then I suggest that you and your devels make them
>> known from within threads containing [PATCH] and [RFC] tags, because I
>> will not be bothering with anything that does not contain comments on
>> creating new or improving existing design and code.
>>
>
> I think this is somewhat backwards...
>
> Vlad appears to be asserting that SCST is more feature-complete that LIO
> at this point. It also seems that LIO is somewhat younger than SCST. So
> at this point it might be interesting to see:
>
> 1. What are the shortcomings of SCST design compared to LIO and why LIO
> developers chose to come with their own solution instead of
> collaborating with SCST folks?
>
> 2. What features are missing from SCST that are currently available in
> LIO?
>
> Once this is sorted out and [most] everyone agrees that LIO is indeed
> technically superior (even if maybe not as mature yet) solution, then it
> would make sense to request SCST developers to go to file/line depth of
> the review.

Those are exactly the questions trying to hear answers on which I'm 
hitting the wall in past time.

Thanks!
Vlad