[cgl_discussion] CGL and DCL trees
skip.ford at verizon.net
Wed Dec 11 15:32:56 PST 2002
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Skip Ford wrote:
> | Randy.Dunlap wrote:
> | > On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Skip Ford wrote:
> | > | 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).
> | But the word "all" is important IMO. There may be many different
> | implementations of some of the features and they all need a home
> | for distributors to have a central source. They will likely conflict so
> | a single tree would be tough to do, but it has to be done.
> I don't agree that distros need a cgl tree to pull from at all.
> They will find their own sources and do their own merging.
> I don't expect them to use this cgl tree.
Ok, now I understand why we disagree. It sounds to me like the idea I
have of a "cgl" tree is more like what you just got rid of, with the
whole cvs repository and all. A central place for development to
continue beyond their initial acceptance.
I agree with your goal of the current tree, but I disagree about distros
not needing a central place to communicate the changes they've made.
> | Why do you disagree with the word "all?"
> Well, it's too inclusive. Like saying always or never.
> It makes for a giant melting pot (more like a stinky pot).
> That's not the goal.
Well, it may be not be pretty but it'll be required IMO.
More information about the cgl_discussion