Subject: Re: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark

From: Bill Davidsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 12:15:14 -0400

Sean wrote:
> On Fri, April 29, 2005 2:54 pm, Tom Lord said:
> 
> 
>>The process should not rely on the security of every developer's
>>machine.  The process should not rely on simply trusting quality
>>contributors by reputation (e.g., most cons begin by establishing
>>trust and continue by relying inappropriately on
>>trust-without-verification).  This relates to why Linus'
>>self-advertised process should be raising yellow and red cards all
>>over the place: either he is wasting a huge amount of his own time and
>>should be largely replaced by an automated patch queue manager, or he
>>is being trusted to do more than is humanly possible.
>>
> 
> 
> Ahh, you don't believe in the development model that has produced Linux! 
> Personally I do believe in it, so much so that I question the value of
> signatures at the changeset level.  To me it doesn't matter where the code
> came from just so long as it works.

Lawyers must love you... That approach doesn't work in court.

Related: look at the new software patent law, it ignores the existing 
law, judge and jury, and lets MS avoid paying the judgement for a suit 
it already lost.

See Computerworld etc for details.

-- 
    -bill davidsen ([email-masked])
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
  last possible moment - but no longer"  -me