Re: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark

From: Sean <seanlkml@sympatico.ca>
Date: Apr 29, 2005, 19:13 UTC
Message-ID: <2944.10.10.10.24.1114802002.squirrel@linux1>
In-Reply-To: <200504291854.LAA26550@emf.net>

On Fri, April 29, 2005 2:54 pm, Tom Lord said:

Show 10 quoted lines

> The process should not rely on the security of every developer's
> machine.  The process should not rely on simply trusting quality
> contributors by reputation (e.g., most cons begin by establishing
> trust and continue by relying inappropriately on
> trust-without-verification).  This relates to why Linus'
> self-advertised process should be raising yellow and red cards all
> over the place: either he is wasting a huge amount of his own time and
> should be largely replaced by an automated patch queue manager, or he
> is being trusted to do more than is humanly possible.
>

Ahh, you don't believe in the development model that has produced Linux! Personally I do believe in it, so much so that I question the value of signatures at the changeset level. To me it doesn't matter where the code came from just so long as it works. Signatures are just a way to increase the comfort level that the code has passed through a number of people who have shown themselves to be relatively good auditors. That's why I trust the code from my distribution of choice. Everything is out in the open anyway so it's much harder for a con man to do his thing.

Sean