[cgl_discussion] CGL and DCL trees

Steven Dake sdake at mvista.com
Wed Dec 11 14:57:07 PST 2002

>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.
>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 don't see the point in anyone maintaining any sort of CGL tree except 
for distributors.  The only people interested in an integrated tree are 
going to be linux vendors, and they are more likely just to use their 
own tree and integrate what they want.  If someone really wants the 
sources integrated they can go download the patchsets and apply them.

I can't see why OSDL wants to bother maintaining a tree, but they are 
welcome to do whatever they want.



More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list