Re: The direction linux is taking

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > >
> > > Huh.  I'm not sure I understand this.  Once you accept a patch into the
> > > mainline source, are these people still supposed to maintain that patch?
> >
> > [Linus stuff]
>
> But this didn't answer my question at all.  My question was why is this a
> problem related to a source management system?  I can see how to exactly
> mimic what described Al doing in BK so if that is the definition of goodness,
> the addition (or absence) of a SCM doesn't seem to change the answer.

Ok, I see what you are asking for.

No, I'm taking a bigger view. A patch is not just a "patch". A patch has a
lot of stuff around it, one being the unknowable information on whether
the sender of the patch is somebody who will do a good job maintaining the
things the patch impacts.

That's something a source control system doesn't give you - but that
doesn't mean that you cannot use a SCM as a tool anyway.

> I _think_ what you are saying is that an SCM where your repository is a
> wide open black hole with no quality control is a problem, but that's
> not the SCM's fault.  You are the filter, the SCM is simply an accounting/
> filing system.

Right. But that's true only if I use SCM as a _personal_ medium, which
doesn't help my external patch acceptance.

So even if I used CVS or BK internally, that's not what people _gripe_
about.  People want write access, not just a SCM.

> but your typical SCM has the end user doing the merges, not the maintainer.
> If you had an SCM system which allowed the maintainer to do all or some of
> the merging, would that help?

Well, that's what the filesystem is for me right now ;)

		Linus