Subject: Re: CVSup collections for a NetBSD CVS tree
To: NetBSD-current Discussion List <>
From: Allen Briggs <>
List: current-users
Date: 05/01/1999 16:07:58
It would be really cool if people could agree to disagree on this
discussion.  I haven't seen anything new since the first two or
three posts.

To distill it in a hopefully non-flammable form...

I think everyone's agreed that:

	A) CVSup is written in Modula-3
	B) Modula-3 doesn't run on all of the
	   architectures that NetBSD does
	C) A significant number of NetBSD users
	   would not be able to run CVSup

Most people are probably agreed or willing to accept for sake of
argument that CVSup is more efficient than many other methods of
synchronizing source trees across a network.

The rest of the arguments seem to be missing each other.  It seems
that they largely fall into two categories:

	1) Due to the above facts (A-C), NetBSD should not
	   even think about running a CVSup server

and	2) Because CVSup is more efficient and some people
	   actually could use it, NetBSD should provide a
	   CVSup server.

These two arguments are mutually exclusive and the source philosophies
seem to be at the root of most of the most flambastic (I like making up
words ;-) arguments that we've grown accustomed to.  To reduce them to
	"NetBSD doesn't run on my toaster, so it's not ready for the
	 general public at all."
	"Since NetBSD 1.4 runs much better for Mr. X, it's ready for
	 release even if some platforms are lagging."

After hearing various forms of this argument for the last 5 years, I
_still_ can't understand why people get so heated up about it.  Give
it a rest, guys.  At least find something fundamentally new to kvetch