[ snip]


>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
>code.

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.