Subject: Re: [lord@regexps.com: Re: [lord@regexps.com: Re: arch advocates]]
From: Tom Lord <lord@regexps.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:39:32 -0700 (PDT)



I think they dangerously mismanage those projects, but this is not a
RISKS list.

-t


   Mail-Followup-To: fsb@crynwr.com,
     lord@regexps.com
   Cc: fsb@crynwr.com
   From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>
   Date: 28 Aug 2002 22:15:04 -0700
   User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
   Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
   X-UIDL: =#i"!R%;!!e37"!:/N!!

   Tom Lord <lord@regexps.com> writes:

   > Ok...my (extremely informed) view on good (distributed, decentralized)
   > revision control is that RH needs to pick up arch-related practices in
   > house and build services for their customers on that foundation.

   Hmmm, it seems to me that Red Hat's biggest projects are things like
   the Linux kernel, gcc, gdb, etc.  Those projects have open mailing
   lists.  You can convince those people to switch to arch without going
   through Red Hat as such.  Moreover, Red Hat can not switch those
   projects unilaterally.

   Red Hat does have internal projects as well.  But if you can get the
   well known free software projects to switch, Red Hat will probably
   also switch.  The reverse is not true.

   Ian