[cgl_discussion] CGL and DCL trees

Sousou, Imad imad.sousou at intel.com
Wed Dec 11 14:36:40 PST 2002


the problem is trying to re-define what open source is; and creating
parallel ways of doing things for open source development doesn't exactly
help us.  I agree with you on the "arrogance" comment... especially around
comments like "We can do whatever we want"...
anyway, this discussion is raising my blood pressure... so i'm signing off
/i

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Mochel [mailto:mochel at osdl.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 2:00 PM
To: Sousou, Imad
Cc: Skip Ford; Timothy D. Witham; Mika Kukkonen; cgl_discussion at osdl.org
Subject: RE: [cgl_discussion] CGL and DCL trees



On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Sousou, Imad wrote:

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

Sure, I don't care. You can come up with whatever dorky names for kernel 
trees you want. 

I have no idea what you would do with such a tree, or what you are trying 
to prove with such a statement. You would only convolute your own intent 
with something probably completely unrelated. 

Look, I'm not directly involved in the working groups, and I've been a big 
pundit of them all along, even when you yourself were the biggest 
proponent of CGL. But, I understand that they are trying to do good in a 
certain space, and by having these endless arrogant arguments about 
semantic issues is counter-productive to the entire effort and everyone's 
goals, personal or corporate. 

Let someone make a decision and go with it. You will never get anywhere 
unless you have a little faith in peers on this project. 

In other words: Drop it. End of story.


	-pat



More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list