[cgl_discussion] CGL and DCL trees
skip.ford at verizon.net
Wed Dec 11 14:07:54 PST 2002
Timothy D. Witham wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 13:41, Skip Ford wrote:
> > Mika Kukkonen wrote:
> > > On ke, 2002-12-11 at 08:39, Timothy D. Witham wrote:
> > > (...)
> > > > As for these trees intending to be the definitive trees
> > > > for the CGL and DCL projects. That is true they are
> > > > intended to be the main trees.
> > >
> > > Just to hammer the point through: Randy's and Steve's kernel
> > > trees are _the_ CGL and DCL trees, and the names of those trees
> > > will be unchanged. If somebody wants to start their own kernel
> > > tree, fine, as long as you rename it to "2.5.51-cgl_mytree" or
> > > something like that (assuming you derive it from Randy's tree).
> > That makes no sense. If I start a tree that intends to meet the
> > requirements established by the CGL Working Group, I have every right to
> > call it -cgl also regardless of whether it's derived from Randy's tree.
> Well, sure and you could call your tree -ac or -mm or any
> other name that was already in use. But you would just be
> causing problems for everybody.
You're missing the point.
I wouldn't have the _right_ to call it -ac or -mm. I would have
the right to call it -cgl.
More information about the cgl_discussion