[sldev] Source reorganization needed

[Dzonatas]

Dale Glass wrote:
>> Robla saying "go get profession help."
>>     
> I'm not sure what's all this about (you seem to have issues with LL I'm
> not fully aware of), but there's no project I know of that guarantees
> anything. There's no guarantee your patch will be accepted or even
> looked at. 
>
> For example, the Linux kernel is notoriously difficult to get a patch
> merged into it. ReiserFS 4 has been trying for years and still haven't
> managed, despite being professionals and dedicated exclusively to it.
> The recent problems they had made that even more unlikely, but even when
> everything was "normal", they couldn't get any guarantee of a merge,
> just like everybody else.


LOL, something I wonder if Robla meant something like that for 
professional help. Being that he said it during a time I really did 
receive life and property threats -- it was severely a wrong thing to 
say at the wrong time.

Linux is different in the way that it has trust feeds. LL probably would 
benefit from such a workflow. Linux obviously handles tons more 
developers at a much faster rate, and you never see any major news about 
them complaining of lack of testing once patches get past the fray of 
the trust feeds.

LL has one big glob of source internally. It is setup very closely like 
old style CVS. LL uses subversion, but LL does not setup the ideal 
structure for source repository that subversion can provide. It's a 
typical conversion from CVS with an old habit hard to break. LL's 
blaming of 'waste of time' should be more directed at their structure 
and mode of operation rather not being up to date with technology trends 
rather than trying to come up with a single name for the blunt end.

Linux may be a bad example since it is known that there is effort to 
separate the core of Linux from all the devices. Torvalds and a few 
others my be at the center of the trust feeds but at least they show 
effort to decentralize that responsibility. Torvalds stated pretty 
clearly about the scheme of Git was to put the responsibility on the 
downstream of the trust feed, as it was wasting upstream's time to 
figure out how to merge and test code.

That 'waste of time' is pretty clear. LL had the notion to relate me as 
a 'waste of time' under a similar condition. I think we find proof here 
with Torvald's Git work that I'm not the 'waste of time' for my attempts 
to send code upstream, however. (I didn't start the fire on that bridge.)

Being that it was at a point in time that I had family issues and 
threats to deal with, it didn't settle well when I heard 'waste of time' 
and 'get professional help' being said about me. I really hate to see 
anybody consider any effort I try to be with my kids to be a 'waste of 
time'. Shame on those who say that.

-- 
Power to Change the Void
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20070829/8659d284/attachment.htm