[cgl_discussion] CGL and DCL trees

Randy.Dunlap rddunlap at osdl.org
Wed Dec 11 14:40:14 PST 2002


On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Skip Ford wrote:

| It goes far beyond naming issues.  They are handling the tree
| incorrectly IMO.  We already have enough trees that are staging points
| for other patches to make it into mainline.  The _real_ CGL tree (which
| their's is _not_) should be a permanent tree which _rejects_ patches
| that will make it into mainline.  Those sorts of patches should go to
| -ac or -mm or -wli or a dozen other come and go trees.

Just to be pedantic, what makes a tree "the _real_ CGL tree"?
Oh, "see below."
And just for the heck of it, who decides what the _real_ CGL tree is?

I happen to like to reject patches.  I don't expect to be adding
50-100 patches just because someone says, "please add this to the
cgl tree."

| Somebody has to maintain all the patchsets that will _never_ be accepted
| at least by Linus and the tree that houses those patches is the real CGL
| tree, and that's not what the current "-cgl" tree is.

I mostly agree with you (except for the word "all" in "all the
patchsets").  My vision of the cgl tree is very much like your
description, and I said that in an email yesterday (or so).
It's for patches above and beyond mainline that CGL needs, like
LKCD, kmsgdump, etc.  Not only tools, but tools are a large part
of it.  And (as I have also already said) I expect to have some
experimental patches that come and go instead of staying in the
tree for a longer time.

-- 
~Randy




More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list