[cgl_discussion] Fw: [announce] linux-2.5.51-dcl1
rddunlap at osdl.org
Tue Dec 10 15:10:56 PST 2002
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Rusty Lynch wrote:
| 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.
That's fairly close IMO, but to be clearer, it's not meant to be a
sandbox where _all_ CGL features are merged.
It's more for giving exposure to features that won't make it into
mainline IMO, like Streams (maybe) and LKCD.
BTW, where did Tim say this?
| 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.
You could add it to a clone of the cgl tree since it's available
from osdl.org. Or someone could download the cgl patch file from
sf.net and locally add whatever patch they want to test.
That way one wouldn't have to do all of the integration again.
But I'd still like to see someone do a POSIX interfaces patch set,
as was proposed in the CGL WG,
and then it would make sense for you to use that.
| 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.
I can understand how some confusion would arise.
| ----- 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
More information about the cgl_discussion