[cgl_discussion] CGL and DCL trees

Mika Kukkonen mika at osdl.org
Wed Dec 11 15:02:18 PST 2002

On ke, 2002-12-11 at 14:34, 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.
> 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.

No. The purpose of cgl tree is to keep some of patches that are not/did
not make into current development kernel over into the next development
kernel cycle. Like it seems now that George Anzinger's high-res timers
is not going to make into 2.5/2.6, but we sure hope it will make into
2.7 or whatever is going to be the next one. If a patch gets ignored
by Linus OR major distros over two development cycles, we will probably
drop it and/or find some other patch to replace it.

To say it more clearly, OSDL is _not_ in business of maintaining
software (patches, whatever) _forever_, we are in business of "guiding"
kernel development into the direction we feel it needs to go to fulfill
the needs of our sponsors. And one (of many) way we do it is by giving
patches like George's exposure in this cgl kernel tree.

If there is some patch that will _never_ get into Linus'es tree, the
distros will pick it up and maintain it, if there are clients that want
to pay for that. Otherwise it will die, and that is called evolution,
and that is A Good Thing (tm).

We are not a standardisation body like POSIX, that accrues err... cruft
(?) over the time. We are able and should drop things if they do not
look viable.


More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list