Charles Plessy writes ("Re: Source files"):
> sorry for drifting that thread further... I can not help adding
> that, the world being in perpetual change, the definition of source
> will one day become an open question again. My favorite guess is
> that at some point, it will be argued that the commit messages and
> the revisions of a file are part the source, since inspecting them
> is part of the "preferred" way to modify the file. But we are not
> there yet...
I'm told that Red Hat make the source code to their kernels available
to their customers only in the form of a tarball plus single giant
patch. They do not make the git history available. This is perhaps
because it's convenient for them but probably also because it prevents
anyone else from building on the work they have done to create their
kernels, cherry picking their changes, etc. It also significantly
hampers anyone trying to derive from their work.
I think that for the Linux kernel, at least, the preferred form for
modification is the git history. I realise that most people don't
(yet) agree with me; and the implications are nontrivial, so I expect
acceptance of this idea to lag somewhat.
Ian.
