Re: kill BK (Re: who is "we"? project goals (was: Re: Svn as a changeset engine.))

> Actually, if talking about the Linux Kernel affair (which is
> the most important one I think), you just wanted the
> "scalability issue" to be removed from the 1.0
> milestone. Isn't it a bit contradictory, since the LK *IS* a
> huge piece of code ?

There are much larger targets, too.

Yes, I think it makes sense to stabilize before optimizing and tuning.

A demonstrable feature set, even with a sluggish release, gives users
who are planning on deployment 6-12 months hence something to hang
their hat on.

It also, for those of you who believe that capitalism isn't _that_
weird, can spark a market for optimization and scalability work.

> I do think that replacing BK is important for the OSS
> community, but if you deliver an uncomplete (or not usable
> for this very important purpose that is the LK) software, you
> will just increase BK supporters ("Look, OS Community cannot
> even make a SCM good enough for the kernel!").

I don't care what they say on /. I do care what a small number of
senior engineers at the unix vendors say. The latter group is smart
enough to evaluate architectures, code quality, and future prospects,
and incorporate their findings into their planning. The former group
-- well, they talk a lot.

-t

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Oct 15 23:16:16 2002