From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751403Ab0IFE4q (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Sep 2010 00:56:46 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:56939 "EHLO mail-pz0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751170Ab0IFE4c (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Sep 2010 00:56:32 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=FbajGsVhnf17N3m5HhWpcS29kCvO3sgB8OTXot21aJgrIroV0Ewb3QQaXBMWHSAev3 0vOgOtfJupkrowHt26x+JYrsx4OvHV68l8yZHwC2VdlWv7SlgrJGVuDaOiBJk8YFQnNk a9bfgRG6DyOmAy0QtM3lmwLPFiScVeraTRVpk= Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 21:56:26 -0700 From: Dmitry Torokhov 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 Subject: Re: [Scst-devel] Fwd: Re: linuxcon 2010... 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 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1283731194.556.147.camel@haakon2.linux-iscsi.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@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