[cgl_discussion] CGL and DCL trees
mika at osdl.org
Wed Dec 11 15:52:10 PST 2002
On ke, 2002-12-11 at 15:21, Skip Ford wrote:
> What about the alternate timers patch? Why should a -cgl tree accept
> George's patch over an alternate patch? The CGL Working Group doesn't
> endorse any specific tree or code so competing patches should get equal
> play in a tree named '-cgl.'
> [I'm not bashing anyone's code here, just trying to understand. I don't
> have any preference over either patch, and don't even know if they offer
> all of the same features.]
I guess the point is that we had to pick one, and we felt George's patch
seemed to be most "mature" enough.
Note that as Randy mentioned, we will probably have a second
"experimental" tree which is just used by us (and whoever wants to
download it) to test some patches for example to see which timer patch
is "best" (as defined by running some benchmark tests: see STP and PLM
at OSDL web page).
> So your -cgl tree is a temporary tree then.
No, it means that -cgl tree is going to change (mutate? :-) over a
longish time, as some patches in it get into "mainline" and new ones
get added. The goal of course is to keep ratio incoming/outgoing patches
at least on 1:1 level, i.e. for every new patch into tree you throw one
out because it:
a) got into mainline
b) is not viable for mainline
As the work required maintaining tree is exponentially dependent on
amount the patches in it, I pretty much guess that Randy wants to keep
the amount of patches in his tree low ;-)
More information about the cgl_discussion