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

Sousou, Imad imad.sousou at intel.com
Tue Dec 10 16:33:59 PST 2002

i'm glad that you are happy Mika, but I it would nice to clarify to people
that the so called CGL tree have absolutely NOTHING to do with the CGL
Working Group, or its members; and its not sanctioned, supported, nor
sponsored by the CGL Working Group... I realize that people are free to do
whatever the heck they want, but I wish you would use a name that wouldn't
confuse people between the OSDL "CGL tree" and the CGL Working group and its

-----Original Message-----
From: Mika Kukkonen [mailto:mika at osdl.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 1:45 PM
To: Randy Dunlap
Cc: Rusty Lynch; cgl_discussion at osdl.org
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 :-).


cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list