[cgl_discussion] CGL and DCL trees
mochel at osdl.org
Wed Dec 11 13:49:58 PST 2002
> > 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.
Technically, you would have the right to call it -ac or -mm. Usually, one
wouldn't be so rude as to use a name that is already in use.
I don't understand why people are making such a big deal about the issue
anyway. It's a Linux kernel tree with a certain name intended for a
certain purpose. It's primary focus, as stated by Tim and Mika, is to
implement the features set forth by the Working Group. I cannot think of a
more perfect name that '-cgl'.
Speaking as a non-partisan kernel developer, Get over it.
You're all wasting time arguing about silly semantics and naming issues
when you could be getting real work done that would benefit everyone in
this space, regardless of tree name they work under.
More information about the cgl_discussion