Subject: Re: CVSup collections for a NetBSD CVS tree
To: Andrew McMurry <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 05/03/1999 15:19:24
>The absence of NetBSD's dominance of the OS world is just as
>conspicuous, but that doesn't stop us, so I don't see why you should
>lambast someone for using his favourite language, just because it
>isn't the dominant language.
Err, no. That's not the issue, as I see it.
The real question is: Greg clearly wants this to be an ``offical''
service. (He's said at least once that it'll be a second-class CVSup
server if it's not official, i.e., in the netbsd.org namespace).
>Speaking as someone who has never used Modula-3 or CVSup, doesn't have
>a machine on which they would run (I use the arm32 port), and who
>doesn't normally agree with Greg, I think he has a good point in this
Sure he does. Nobody ever said otherwise. The real question is, if we
get support for Modula-3 in by a `stealth' route like this, whose
responsbility is it to do the Right Thing and make this service
available to all NetBSD ports?
I'm saying it should be up to those who want the service. Either they
provide it for *all* NetBSD platforms, or they don't get to make it
``official''. Otherwise, ports without modula-3 support are
And *that* is going against the goals of the Project.
As far as I'm concerned Greg is more than welcome to set up an
unofficial server. If it becomes `official' then we need a migration
plan to get CVSup support for *all* ports. And that should be
responsibility of the people advocating CVSUp.
They want it, *they* do the donkeywork to port m3. Not me.