[cgl_discussion] CGL and DCL trees

Skip Ford 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.

-- 
Skip



More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list