In message <m10dd8m-000g5pC@most.weird.com>Greg A. Woods writes:

>[ On Saturday, May 1, 1999 at 03:06:31 (-0400), Aidan Cully wrote: ]

[snip]

Greg, just who are these flames about people being two-faced addressed at?


>> I thought the message that came across was "we don't want to officially
>> sanction CVSup as a method for tracking our CVS repository."


>It amounts to same thing if you're an outsider looking in, especially
>when those outsiders are already well enamoured with CVSup and know the
>cost they would pay for going back to a more primitive update system.

So what you're relaly saying is, we have to provide CVSup, or FreeBSD
users wont like us very much?

>> Interesting choice of words..  You say "challenge" where I'd say "burden."

As would I.

>> I don't think we want to port M3 to all of our platforms, and I really
>> doubt that anyone apart from us would ever devote any effort into
>> maintaining the M3 port after we do, hypothetically, get it working.
>
>In real life things don't always work that way, thankfully.  From other
>correspondence I've had I would guess that the M3 community would gladly
>welcome new ports and given their previous track record in making sure
>all ports are maintained with new releases, I don't think we'd end up
>with the situation you're hypothesising.


That's just asinine. the M3 community has already *dropped* support
for one of the CPU architectures we support. Adding up all the rest of
the individual ports would very nearly double their support workload.
And writing (quality) backends for three new architectures would be 
a huge investment of time.

The goals of M3 simply do not fit well with the goals of the NetBSD
project. That makes it very difficult to officially sanction CVSup as
a method for tracking our CVS repository -- since we can' do that
within the goals of the project unless it works on all the platforms
we support.