> can you explain why is this not viable? what essential bits would be > missing if hg/git/whatever is not tightly integrated into the process?
Maybe I didn't explain well: self-contained Plan 9 does not provide code review tools. Whereas I can follow (I have learnt to) the conventions of codereview (as used in Go, by whatever name), I do not expect less disciplined approaches to be as appealing and successful as codereview, maybe that's just me, but I am speaking for myself and measuring the 9fans community by the same metric. Ergo: Plan 9 does not (yet?) contain sufficient tools to be self-sustaining. We're human and we're subjective individuals. We have a very weak bond holding this community together, consisting, at least in my case, more of what other OSes are missing than of any loyalty to what we have. Whatever we deploy to provide a platform for progress needs to be stronger than the criticism that will be levelled at it; it needs firm buy-in by the community. I, for one, would need some hard sell to consider patch and its offspring as sufficient and much more to convince me that it would be technically superior to codereview, others may well be even more hard-assed than I am, and their skills and contributions are too important to sacrifice. Strong words? Definitely, 9fans has survived past worse and will again, so they need not be taken to heart. But we do risk falling too far behind to ever be of any significance and that would be our loss as well as a loss for the entire IT community. Again, I'm being subjective, by all means keep throwing your stones. A thin skin here is not going to help. ++L
