[cgl_discussion] CGL and DCL trees

Timothy D. Witham wookie at osdl.org
Wed Dec 11 14:15:01 PST 2002

  You are right.  I'm done discussing this and the -cgl stays.


On Wed, 2002-12-11 at 13:49, Patrick Mochel wrote:
> > >   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. 
> 	-pat
Timothy D. Witham - Lab Director - wookie at osdlab.org
Open Source Development Lab Inc - A non-profit corporation
15275 SW Koll Parkway - Suite H - Beaverton OR, 97006
(503)-626-2455 x11 (office)    (503)-702-2871     (cell)
(503)-626-2436     (fax)

More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list