CGL 5.0 - Git

[gui.fortaine@xxxxxxxxx (Guillaume FORTAINE)]

Dear Greg,

1)

> I understand that the CGL group feels there are gaps, and has tried to
> document them, that's fine.  My point being where are those kernel
> patches that implement those gaps, and why are they not being submitted
> to the main kernel.org tree for inclusion for everyone to use?
> 
> Setting up a separate tree does no one any good, unless you want to
> never get the code merged...


http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/CGL_Documentation_Strategy

Each section of the "Carrier Gaps" document will specify a requirement (what) and the justifications (why), but not the implementation (how). Although proposing a patchset is perhaps the most efficient way of demonstrating a capability, the CGL workgroup does not expect to dictate what patchsets should be accepted. Instead, the goal is to have kernel developers review and comment on these requirements on the CGL mailing list. This initial round of review will hopefully reveal issues that need to be addressed for a patch to be accepted, or at least serve to illustrate the underlying requirement that carriers are aiming to solve. Ultimately, any proposed kernel patches must be posted on LKML and accepted by the relevant subsystem maintainer under the normal kernel development process. The goal of CGL is to increase the early communication between the carrier and Linux communities to increase the probability that functionality needed by carriers and their vendors will be quickly adopted.





I totally agree and my first mail was an attempt to get rid of these shadow practices. I am only aware of 2 publicly available patches for the Carrier Gaps :

http://ppacc.sourceforge.net/ (for 2.6.18.6)

http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=36127




2) 

> There are lots of public git hosting services availble, that's not the
> issue here.  The issue is where is the code you are saying is somehow
> not included into the main kernel tree, and why is it not being
> submitted there?

The links are above. Maybe should we contact the developers to ask them to submit the code for the latest kernel tree ?

I look forward to Your Answer,

Best Regards,




> Message du 18/05/08 20:36
> De : "Greg KH" <greg at kroah.com>
> A : "Guillaume FORTAINE" <gui.fortaine at orange.fr>
> Copie ? : lf_carrier at linux-foundation.org, cherry at linux-foundation.org, Stephan.Scholz at nsn.com
> Objet : Re: CGL 5.0 - Git
> 
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 04:30:32PM +0200, Guillaume FORTAINE wrote:
> > > What specific kernel patches are required for CGL 5.0 that is not
> > > currently in the kernel.org tree that would require a different branch?
> > 
> > The Carrier Gaps :
> > 
> > http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/CGL_Documentation_Strategy
> > 
> >  Satisfied Requirements 
> > 
> > The workgroup will begin by taking the published CGL 4.0 documents and
> > splitting them into two parts. The "Satisfied Requirements" document
> > will include all requirements that are fully satisfied by the current
> > mainline kernel and/or latest enterprise distributions. The goal is to
> > have a formal way for the carrier community to communicate to their
> > vendors and the Linux community what requirements they expect to
> > continue to be satisfied over time. This document is not expected to
> > change frequently, except by having new requirements added to it as
> > they are satisfied. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Carrier Gaps  
> > 
> > The second, and more dynamic document, is the "Carrier Gaps" document.
> > This document describes carrier requirements that are not currently
> > satisfied by the mainline kernel and/or latest enterprise distros.
> > Each requirement will include one or more specific examples of carrier
> > needs that are not currently being satisfied. These requirements
> > should include some proof-of-concept to avoid blue-sky requirements.
> > Examples of proofs-of-concept are proposed patchsets, the existence in
> > other OSes like Windows or Solaris, or existing products that use
> > different approaches such as a hard RTOS. 
> 
> I understand that the CGL group feels there are gaps, and has tried to
> document them, that's fine.  My point being where are those kernel
> patches that implement those gaps, and why are they not being submitted
> to the main kernel.org tree for inclusion for everyone to use?
> 
> Setting up a separate tree does no one any good, unless you want to
> never get the code merged...
> 
> > how-to-get-kernel.org-accounts is described at
> > http://www.kernel.org/faq/#account
> > 
> > However a separate git server works just fine.
> 
> There are lots of public git hosting services availble, that's not the
> issue here.  The issue is where is the code you are saying is somehow
> not included into the main kernel tree, and why is it not being
> submitted there?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
> 
>