Re: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark

[Bill Davidsen]

Sean wrote:
> On Fri, April 29, 2005 2:54 pm, Tom Lord said:
>
>
> > The process should not rely on the security of every developer's
> > machine.  The process should not rely on simply trusting quality
> > contributors by reputation (e.g., most cons begin by establishing
> > trust and continue by relying inappropriately on
> > trust-without-verification).  This relates to why Linus'
> > self-advertised process should be raising yellow and red cards all
> > over the place: either he is wasting a huge amount of his own time and
> > should be largely replaced by an automated patch queue manager, or he
> > is being trusted to do more than is humanly possible.
>
>
> Ahh, you don't believe in the development model that has produced Linux! 
> Personally I do believe in it, so much so that I question the value of
> signatures at the changeset level.  To me it doesn't matter where the code
> came from just so long as it works.

Lawyers must love you... That approach doesn't work in court.

Related: look at the new software patent law, it ignores the existing 
law, judge and jury, and lets MS avoid paying the judgement for a suit 
it already lost.

See Computerworld etc for details.

--
   -bill davidsen (davidsen@xxxxxxx)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
 last possible moment - but no longer"  -me
-
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/