Re: Yet another base64 patch
- From
David A. Wheeler <dwheeler@dwheeler.com>
- Date
- Apr 17, 2005, 17:51 UTC
- Message-ID
- <4262A238.3050207@dwheeler.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20050417011615.3e7dfb29.pj@sgi.com>
Paul Jackson wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> David wrote: > >>My list would be: >>ext2, ext3, NFS, and Windows' NTFS (stupid short filenames, >>case-insensitive/case-preserving). > > > I'm no mind reader, but I'd bet a pretty penny that what you have in > mind and what Linus has in mind have no overlaps in their solution sets.
Sadly, I lack the mind reading ability as well.
Our goals are, I suspect, somewhat different. Linus wants to build a tool that meets his specific needs (managing kernel development), and he has particular requirements (such as fast simple merging when working at large scales). In contrast, I'm hoping for a more general OSS/FS SCM tool that many others can use as well.
But I think there's heavy overlap in the solution space. The Linux kernel project is, to my knowledge, the largest project using a truly distributed SCM process. Anyone else who is considering a distributed SCM process would at _least_ want to think about how the Linux kernel project works, and if they're doing so, they might also want to reuse the development tools.
I'm just taking a peek, and looking for situations where a design decision is irrelevant for his purposes, but a particular direction would be of particular help to other projects. I'm more worried about the storage format; if the code doesn't support some particular feature but it could be added later without great pain, no big deal. If something would imply a complete rewrite, that's undesirable.
--- David A. Wheeler