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

[Mark Deneen]

> Hi Mark,
>
> I will always be advocating using the best tool for the job in any given
> situation.  So absoulutely, I would have picked bitkeeper over tarballs
> any day of the week 7 years ago, or over SVN if it had existed back
> then.

I can't say that I agree with this.  SVN existed, along with many
other open source choices -- the choice of BitKeeper was a mistake.

> But again, I think it's an important point that git is a tool that was
> made explictly for the linux kernel workflow.  Why would a new subsystem
> maintainer is participates in the kernel workflow ever use anything
> besides git at this point..?

Look, I'm not saying that I dislike git.  I use it as my SCM here.
However, git was in its infancy (or not even around) when SCST was
started.  It's not like they had a proprietary vendor go cold turkey
on them, forcing everyone to another solution.

> And sorry, but considering the obvious advantages in terms of workflow
> speed and flexibility that git brings to the table for a subsystem
> maintainer, calling the choise of SCM a nit-pick item demonstrates a
> level certain level of inexperience wrt to mainline kernel workflow.
> Which is perfectly OK, but if you really want to understand the issues
> at hand in a distributed vs. centrailized SCM model, I strongly suggest
> you watch Linus's talk as well.
>
> Best,
>
> --nab

I'm still calling it a nit-pick.  Vlad could switch to git in a short
amount of time if he felt so compelled.  This is like saying that the
quality of a car is based on the style of garage it is parked in.

Kind Regards,
Mark Deneen
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/