On Thu, 20 Apr 2006, Bob Woodruff wrote:
> Roland wrote, > > - Several groups are already using their own separate repositories > > anyway, so svn doesn't have all of the latest and greatest anyway. > > (For example both ehca and ipath are really maintained in private > > repositories) > >- Pulling patches out of svn to merge with a git tree generates extra > > time-wasting busy-work, both for the submitter and for me. > > > - svn kernel drivers dilute testing attention from the upstream > > kernel, which means that upstream is not as high-quality as possible. > > >Getting rid of svn would encourage new features to be developed as > >self-contained patch sets, which makes an eventual upstream merge much > >easier. And of course having git as our core repository would make > >developing on a branch far far easier. > > > - R. > > I don't have a problem moving from SVN to something like git if it makes > the kernel development and pushing upstream easier as long as the database > is available in the open and not kept in some private repository, which is > not the open source way. > > I would also like to see all components user and kernel use the same source > control tool so that I don't have to install learn and maintain lots of > different tools. I also find having the user and kernel code in the same repository useful. > my 2 cents, > > woody _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
