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

John Cherry cherry at osdl.org
Tue Dec 10 16:15:04 PST 2002


Rusty,

I understand the sensitivity of bitkeeper and corporations.  There are a
couple of ways to have your bitkeeper tree hosted.  You could either get
a tree hosted at bkbits or we could host your tree here at OSDL. 
Randy's CGL tree is derived from a common OSDL tree which contains some
common CGL/DCL features (tools and bug fixes).  Unless you want to
leverage high res timers, you might want to consider deriving your tree
off of the OSDL tree.  Let me know what you would like to do.  I'll set
up a tree for you if you need it.

John

On Tue, 2002-12-10 at 15:34, Rusty Lynch wrote:
>  > You have it wrong there. This is Randy's kernel tree, and if you want
> > something to be added there, you try to convince Randy to add it. But
> > nothing stops you from deriving your own kernel tree from Randy's tree
> > (that's why we are using BitKeeper), and add your patch to that, and use
> > that anyway you like.
> 
> The one thing that would be pretty usefull, is if cgl participants 
> could put up cgl derived bk trees on osdl machines.  Maybe there
> is a better place root trees, but it seems like it would be appropriate.
> 
> I suspect a lot of participants do not have a good open domain
> to open a tree at.
> 
>     -rusty
>  
> _______________________________________________
> cgl_discussion mailing list
> cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
> http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion
-- 
John Cherry <cherry at osdl.org>




More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list