On Sun, 2 May 1999, Christopher R. Bowman wrote:

> Rather the
> question we should be debating is the broader question: should we as a project
> make it our policy that all project progress has to come on all ports equally,
> or can we allow things that boost some ports if they don't damage others?

That's already answered by our actions: the i386 port gets more
attention than any other port out there, and there are fairly vast
differences between the best-support (i386) and worst-supported (I
won't name names :-)) ports out there. Everything seems to get into
all ports eventually, but definitely not at the same rate.

Anyway, Charles was dead right on this one; Greg can set up his
CVSup server and if people use it, great; we can have a flamewar
about putting a CNAME for it under netbsd.org. If nobody uses it
we just don't get to have that flamewar. I'm sure we can come up
with something else to fight about anyway. :-)

cjs
--
Curt Sampson  <cjs@cynic.net>   604 801 5335   De gustibus, aut bene aut nihil.
NetBSD: Unix with acrimony!                    http://www.netbsd.org