Re: BK kernel workflow

[Michael Buesch]

Quoting Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx>:
> 
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2004, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > 
> >    So BK helps this model, because the distributed nature of BK means that 
> >    you can have several pseudo-official trees _and_ totally unofficial
> >    ones, and merging is automatic and basically impossible to avoid, so 
> >    the "official" tree never gets to drown out the unofficial work. But 
> >    despite that, I want to make people _aware_ that maintainership does
> >    not imply total ownership, and that we don't have a "hierarchy" of 
> >    developers but a *network* of developers.
> 
> Btw, I've tried in the past to express why I think the BK model is so
> good, and why CVS ans Subversion totally suck, and I think the previous
> email perhaps explains it best.

What do kernel developers think about svk?
(Yes, it's not mature, yet.)
I mean the svk concept. Does it also suck for kernel development?

> It really is a very important conceptual thing, that "network" vs 
> "hierarchy" difference.  And I know we all love bashing Larry, but give 
> the guy a pat on the back for really making that difference visible.
> 
> [ Larry removed from the cc, because he's got ego enough as it is ;]

;)

>   Linus

Michael.
-
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/