[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.
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)
More information about the cgl_discussion