If M3 is viable language and there ARE people actually using it
and there will be M3 followers around, it would be good thing to
have it running on NetBSD/*. Some people suggest it's not a major
deal to have it running for new archs.

My big mistake was I though M3 is marginal language, not really
used by anyone. Guessing by the web pages I read through, it's not so.

If CVSup is really so cool & fast how everybody seems to be saying,
it would be really good to use it to distribute NetBSD sources. Yes,
it is restricted to i386 & alpha at the moment. NetBSD 0.8
run on i386 only too. NetBSD has improved a lot from that time,
hasn't it ? ;-) And so would M3 , if only enough people will be interested
in it.

CVSup could be one of the things why people would like to port M3.
Yeah, something other&better can emerge.  I don't thing it's wise
to wait for it to happen though -- we might never live to it ;-)

Using CVSup would be still an *option*. It would not be the only
way for fetching sources, hopefully ;-) It's restricted, yes,
but even this is much better than nothing at all.

So the questions are:
1) would cvsup get official blessing and (more importantly) necessary
	hw resources somewhere ?
2) who is willing to set it up & maintain ?
3) who is willing to make m3 & cvsup (binary) packages ?

> [ On Saturday, May 1, 1999 at 10:34:15 (-0700), Brian D Chase wrote: ]
> > And this is probably a good way to illustrate why a good number
> > of NetBSDers are ethically opposed to embracing any software like CVSup.

Well, there are about 5 or so people talking about this issue
publicly on current-users@, so "good number of NetBSDers" is
not really so appropriate ;-)

-- 
Jaromir Dolecek <dolecek@ics.muni.cz>      http://www.ics.muni.cz/~dolecek/
"The only way how to get rid temptation is to yield to it." -- Oscar Wilde