[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.


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

      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.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]