[cgl_discussion] Fw: [announce] linux-2.5.51-dcl1

[Rusty Lynch]

Personally, I'm just trying to figure out if this is something I could find 
useful.  It seems a little unclear to me how the tree is to be used.  What 
is it's purpose?

Tim made it sound (at least the way I understood him) like the tree was 
kind of a common sandbox for CGL related features.  That makes
sense to me, but it leaves a lot of details to be defined... maybe it's
just to early to ask specific questions.

For example, if I wanted to collaborate with some other people over
testing POSIX message queues, would it be acceptable to add
the message queue patch of the day (or hour) to the cgl tree
so I can always refer to test results on 'the latest cgl bk tree'
type of thing.

If not then no big deal, I'll just do it another way.  I can imagine
a few other ways where I could use such a tree, but I think
I could be reading a lot into what this tree is for.

    -rusty

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mika Kukkonen" <mika at osdl.org>
To: "Randy Dunlap" <rddunlap at osdl.org>
Cc: "Rusty Lynch" <rusty at linux.co.intel.com>; <cgl_discussion at osdl.org>
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: [cgl_discussion] Fw: [announce] linux-2.5.51-dcl1


> On ti, 2002-12-10 at 13:24, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> (...)
> > So I decide what goes into the -cgl tree.  Other people can try
> > to influence that decision (like Mika), and I may disagree with
> > such suggestions.
> > 
> > This -cgl tree is not meant to be an answer to any of the PoC
> > feature sets or patch sets.  In fact, it's not even a part of
> > the PoC.
> 
> Let me just state that I agree with and support Randy 100% on above
> statements. If somebody has any problems with above, talk to me, and
> don't bother Randy.
> 
> On a different tone, I am very happy that Randy is doing this so that
> I am not the one that has to learn how to use BitKeeper :-).
> 
> --MiKu
>