[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Inertia on lkml?
From: |
Adam Spiers |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Inertia on lkml? |
Date: |
Wed, 24 Sep 2003 15:55:10 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.1i |
Zack Brown (address@hidden) wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 12:23:06PM +0100, Adam Spiers wrote:
> > From: Linus Torvalds
> > To: Andrea Arcangeli
> > Subject: Re: log-buf-len dynamic
> > Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 14:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> > Andrea - please just shut up.
> >
> > Until you can point to anything even _remotely_ as good as
> > BitKeeper, there's no point in just continually trying to start a
> > flame-war.
> >
> > How is it that such brilliantly clever guys such as Linus and Andrea
> > seem *so* slow on the uptake when it comes to arch? What am I
> > missing? It's not as if arch hasn't been mentioned many many times on
> > lkml already ...
>
> Linus is often a slow decision-maker. Once he makes up his mind to do
> something, like include devfs or khttpd in the kernel, he can take a
> long time to change his mind again, even after it becomes very clear to
> everyone that an alternative is better.
[snipped]
I agree with all of that. I'm just a bit concerned by the way his
words above imply (at least to me) that arch hasn't even registered on
his radar. If it had, I would have expected him to phrase that more
like:
Instead of continually trying to start a flame-war, why don't
you go and join the efforts of a worthy contender for BitKeeper,
such as GNU arch? Then come back when you've helped shape that
project into a truly viable replacement.
If Linus and other key lkml players said things like this more often,
I would expect a lot of the energy currently spent in these flame wars
to be redirected towards more positive action.
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Tom Lord, 2003/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: Inertia on lkml?, Pau Aliagas, 2003/09/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Karel Gardas, 2003/09/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Momchil Velikov, 2003/09/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/09/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Zack Brown, 2003/09/25
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Karel Gardas, 2003/09/25
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Pau Aliagas, 2003/09/25
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Karel Gardas, 2003/09/25
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Inertia on lkml?, Zack Brown, 2003/09/24
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Inertia on lkml?,
Adam Spiers <=
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Pau Aliagas, 2003/09/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Inertia on lkml?, Zack Brown, 2003/09/25
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Miles Bader, 2003/09/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Dustin Sallings, 2003/09/25
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Bruce Stephens, 2003/09/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2003/09/26
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Jason McCarty, 2003/09/26
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Samium Gromoff, 2003/09/26
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Miles Bader, 2003/09/26
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Inertia on lkml?, Robin Farine, 2003/09/26