lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [Scst-devel] Fwd: Re: linuxcon 2010...
    From
    Date
    On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 01:47 +0400, Vladislav Bolkhovitin wrote:
    > James Bottomley, on 09/06/2010 02:39 PM 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.
    > >
    > > Oh, for god's sake children. Why does every LIO vs SCST discussion turn
    > > into a pointless flameware over stuff no-one really cares about? If
    > > none of you has anything substantive to say: don't say it.
    >
    > James, sorry, but you can't blame us. I keep asking for clear rules and
    > don't receive much. So, there are speculations and pseudo-rules, which
    > sometimes go to the absurd, as in this SVN vs Git case. No surprise
    > then, that people have risen against this absurd (thanks a lot to them
    > for support!).
    >
    > Frankly, in all the situation around Linux SCSI targets I for quite a
    > long time feeling myself as a hero of a Kafka novel. Supposed to be
    > goals are to have the best code doing its job the best, but on practice
    > nobody cares about technical arguments and figuring out which subsystem
    > is the best. Instead, everything lives it own incomprehensible life,
    > where doesn't matter what you are doing, all already long ago decided
    > behind your back and you will never be told why. All accurate statements
    > not heard or, at best, called "handwaving", but dirty public opinion
    > manipulations based on half- and less-than-half- truth have very warn
    > welcome. This atmosphere is unhealthy, really.

    Sorry Vlad, but this is simply not the truth. You have had ample time
    to comment on the hundreds of TCM/LIO patches posted to linux-scsi and
    lkml over the last years, but you have chosen never to comment on a
    *single* one then, or even on a single one now of the dozens that have
    been posted in the last 3 weeks while this thread has been lumbering
    forward..

    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.

    Best,

    --nab



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-09-07 00:01    [W:4.107 / U:0.184 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site