Subject: Re: CVSup collections for a NetBSD CVS tree
To: Michael Graff <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 05/01/1999 14:16:56
In message <email@example.com>, Michael Graff writes:
>Allen Briggs <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>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.''
Those are bad analogies. If you really want an analogy, the correct
one would be that we adopt USB support that works on i386 and Alpha
USB hardware, but which (due to design mistakes) simply will not work
on sparc or macppc without inordinate amounts of porting and support.
Do you think NetBSD should do that? If not, why not?
Why is CVSup any different?
>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.
You're not hearing one side of the argument.
>This whole argument against it is silly.
Not at all (can I guess you run ports which does run CVSup?)
but I'll concede the *argument* itself is silly :)