[cgl_discussion] Fw: [announce] linux-2.5.51-dcl1
rusty.lynch at intel.com
Tue Dec 10 22:17:38 PST 2002
> Skip Ford wrote:
> I couldn't agree more. One thing I've noticed as I'm trying to learn
> about OSDL, CGL, DCL, and all the features/patch sets is you guys are
> using generic names for everything. I mentioned before that what you
> call features are really names of patches of implementations of
> You're doing the same thing with names of trees. What happens when
> 10 different groups release their own carrier-grade trees all based
> on the requirements of the CGL Working Group but with different code?
> What would make your tree anymore "cgl" than the other 9 trees?
> The more trees we have the better so Stephen and Randy are
> doing a good
> thing but I think their trees are named incorrectly. By
> saying here is
> _the_ cgl tree, you're really saying don't bother with CG work unless
> it's with us because we have _the_ tree.
> Rusty's tree s/b named -rl and Stephen's -sh. And instead of saying
> "_the_ cgl tree" and "_the_ dcl tree" you should say "_a_ cgl tree..."
I agree. Regardless of what the intent of Stephen's and Randy's
trees, it reads like these are _the_ cgl and _the_ dcl trees.
I was thinking that it would be a pretty nice thing to make new
repositories available for patch set projects that aim to provide
some portion of the cgl requirements, but after looking further
into bkbits.net... man! that was easy!
(It seems like bkbits.net would be worried about somebody DOS'ing
them since it is so easy to get a tree. It's very cool!)
> cgl_discussion mailing list
> cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
More information about the cgl_discussion