Subject: Re: CVSup collections for a NetBSD CVS tree
To: Allen Briggs <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Michael Graff <email@example.com>
Date: 05/01/1999 13:53:43
Allen Briggs <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> 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."
Or, how about: ``Some ports don't have USB busses, therefore no port
should.'' Or beter yet, ``some machines are diskless, therefore all
disk support should be removed.''
It seems to me that just because some ports can't run CVSup doesn't
mean that we should ignore it fully. Put up a server in parallel with
the sup, and hopefully anonymous cvs server. It isn't like we're
restricting information, just the way to get it.
This whole argument against it is silly.