Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: taglines vs explicit

[Davide Libenzi]

On Mon, 6 Oct 2003, Tom Lord wrote:

> a) I think it would be a mistake to define the problem as "Slip arch
>    in without perturbing Linus' workflow."   There is no opportunity
>    to _improve_ the situation without disturbing it.
>
> b) There is a much bigger fish to fry than Linus:  designing
>    engineering processes for free software generally.   Linus is just
>    a guy[1].   It is both rude and dangerous to try to turn him from
>    "guy" into "pivot point for the engineering processes of the free
>    software world".   I don't at all mean that he is immune to
>    criticism for his quasi-contractual deal with BitMover -- only that
>    the proper community response to that blunder of his is not to
>    put him in the role of touchstone for revision control tools.
>    If Linus is hopelessly broken, the right answer is to route around
>    him.
>
> c) And anyway, it is _absurd_ to make him the touchstone of revision
>    control.  He isn't playing that game with anyone other than Larry.
>    His public statements on what's needed in such tools are scant and
>    vague.  When people start saying on this list "Yes, but Linus
>    {wants,needs,won't,must have,....}" mostly what I hear is the
>    author of those comments saying "I believe too much of what I read
>    on /."

The case of lkml/Linus is just an example. Being the most complex open
source project out there, if you're able to have a working solution that
will fit that, the rest comes pretty easy. The number of merged patches
and the number of contributors makes it the most complex project, not just
my immagination. The whole thing is pretty simple after all, if a solution
makes life better for a maintainer, that's a success. The thing works even
for Linus/Andrew/whoever. Even if the solution makes you work in a
different way.



- Davide