Thus spake Bill Studenmund ("BS> ") sometime Today...

BS> Also, I think getting multi-CPU operation working right will take a few
BS> itterations, and quite a lot of testing. I'd expect it'd take 4 to 6
BS> months to get right. 2.0 is behind schedule as it is, so I think it'd be
BS> best to just ship 2.0 as we have it now.

Of course, it would be.  After all, isn't the massive shakedown what a
dot-zero release is all about, anyway? 8-D

Don't mind me, I'm just being flip.  I'm really looking forward to
it whenever it happens to get released; until then, I'm happily compiling
-current and running it when feasible.

I have a question, though -- since we're migrating to 2.0, the major
bump represents, to me, a new starting ground, a new plateau, more
or less fresh and clean.  Do we intend to be backward compatible with
1.x, or can we just declare a cut-off point and move forward with a bit
less baggage (such as, i.e., libc.so.12)?

Or will that be 3.0 material, whenever we advance sufficiently to the
point that we can bump our major number again (which I see libc's major
bump as being the cause rather than an effect thereof :) )?

[...or do we intend to ride libc v12 all the way out to 12.9999 or whatever
it's capable of handling?]

				--*greywolf;
--
NetBSD: We're not in canvas anymore, toto