[Recipients trimmed out of respect for their personal mailspool.]

On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Theo de Raadt wrote:

> I think Scott has access to NetBSD CVS access.  Hence, when he uses
> 	cvs update
> to update his source tree at home, cvs does not delete and mangle
> local patches he has applied to his source tree -- in fact it tries to
> be really nice about merging diffs.

(1) Having access to the NetBSD CVS repository does not imply that I use
it on all of the systems I have a source tree on.  (Yes, I _do_ use SUP
and I _do_ have local patches.)

(2) CVS "tries to be really nice" is not nearly the same as "succeeds."  I
have other local patches that regularly cause conflicts in one of my
trees, and CVS doesn't have the faintest idea how to deal with them.  One
of these is a PR I originated aeons ago, and virtually every time someone
has touched the affected file, I've had to manually reintegrate my patch.

> Now, when looked at this way, I'm not surprised that Jukka is
> complaining, or that Scott has missed the point.

Once again, Theo has pronounced judgement after asserting his speculations
as fact.  This astounding lack of integrity is disheartening; I honestly
hope this doesn't bode ill for the innocent folks using OpenBSD.

--scott