Subject: Re: [lord@regexps.com: Re: [lord@regexps.com: Re: arch advocates]]
From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>
Date: 29 Aug 2002 10:37:32 -0700

Tom Lord <lord@regexps.com> writes:

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

I mentioned two kinds of projects.  Which ones do you think they
mismanage?  The external projects or the internal projects?

Ian

>    From: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@airs.com>
>    Date: 28 Aug 2002 22:15:04 -0700
> 
>    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.