On Sat, Feb 03, 2001 at 12:50:49PM -0600, Richard Rauch wrote:
> Looking at the port-sparc mailing list archive, another turning point
> seems to have been reached in this post:
> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-sparc/1994/01/31/0000.html
> ...this closely matches your 1994/02/01 date (and the message was posted
> late the night of 01/31...).
 
GMT. ;)  I'm pretty sure all the dates listed on the T-Shirt are when
the port could first run NetBSD (I can think of at least one that might
be off though).  So, with some of the later ports in the table we'll
have to find out when that was, since it was before the date it was
imported (and we won't gather that information till we print that
T-Shirt again I bet). ;)
 
> Perhaps you should list multiple dates for each, or a span of time?  One
> person may be interested in knowing at what time(s) people had NetBSD
> booting on a machine.

Definitely.

> Another may only be interested in knowing when binary distributions
> were available.

Hrmm, a 'first release' column would be easier, and if there are only
snapshots available, stick in an asterisk and an anchor and explain
what that means.  I like the simplicity of the table as is though.

> Yet a third person might want to start counting when -current sources
> or a stable binary snapshot were ready for the platform.

Ahh, we're making one big table here.  If people are interested in when
a port was initially committed to our source tree, we can add that date
to the intro text on the various port-specific pages (a la sparc).
 
> Similarly, I've been irritated a time or two to hear
> that XXX hardware is supported, but later I find that it is only supported
> under -current---since I only run releases at present, I may have to wait
> a year or more before what works under -current today will be supported in
> a release.)

Yea, this frankly sucks.  Hubert (and others) have brought up the option of
centralizing supported hardware information (there are lists all over the
place).  It'd be easier to maintain, and we'd add an extra field if a listed
device wasn't, at least, supported in a formal release yet (then any of the
various lists in our repository, if that information isn't necessary, could
ignore that field).

It's somewhere on my todo list, but so are a lot of other things.  If
somebody else does it, I'll do my cookies of their choice offer though.

> I think that the history page is a good idea, and wish you well in getting
> it onto the NetBSD site.

We're really quite accommodating you know.

--
Reed <aiko@antigone.net>