[cgl_discussion] CGL and DCL trees

[Sousou, Imad]

silly, hmmmm... so its ok for me to go out and call sonething "OSDL CGL
Kernel Tree" ?


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Mochel [mailto:mochel at osdl.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 1:50 PM
To: Skip Ford
Cc: Timothy D. Witham; Mika Kukkonen; cgl_discussion at osdl.org
Subject: Re: [cgl_discussion] CGL and DCL trees



> >   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

_______________________________________________
cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion