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 15:49:21
>If people had spent the time that they spent posting messages arguing
>against spending effort on CVSup actually configuring it, then it
>would be done by now, and (once the public CVS access is working) we
>would be able to boast more available means for accessing our source
You know, I think this is symptomatic of the disagreement.
The issue at stake is whether ``working for some favoured ports'',
(due to a crappy, for NetBSD's purposes, implementation) counts as a
``working' NetBSD service. Especially since there are no plans
and no commitments to make the service generally avaiable.
You obviously think it does.
I don't. I think the onus to make it generaly available belongs with
those who want it. I don't know what your take is there, but Greg's
is, unabashedly, to declare that some ports are less equal than others.
And I see *that* as contrary to the goals of the project.