Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 27 Dec 2001 12:55:28 -0800 | From | Larry McVoy <> | Subject | Re: The direction linux is taking |
| |
On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 12:45:08PM -0800, Dana Lacoste wrote: > why use the SCM if the features it gives are being supplied > in a completely acceptable manner by the maintainer? > If Linus is doing it on his own, and you're suggesting that > he set the SCM up so that he does it all on his own in the > end anyways, why should he add an extremely obtrusive step > (SCM) to the mix? Why should it be any harder on his day > to day methodology that he's already comfortable with?
Merging is much easier. Tracking of patches is much easier. Access control is much easier. Etc.
> (If, on the other hand, we allowed multiple committers > and access-controlled maintainer lists, then SCM would > be beautiful! but this isn't FreeBSD :) :) :) :) :)
Actually, BK can definitely do that. In fact, that's basically exactly what we have on the hosting service for the PPC tree. There are a list of people who are administrators, a list of committers, as well as read only access. The admins are also committers if they want to be, the admins also get to control who is and is not a committer.
And you dream up as complicated an access control model as you want. We can do pretty much any model you can describe. Try me, describe a work flow that you think would be useful, I'll write up how to do it and stick it on a web page and you can throw stones at it and see if it breaks. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |