> Even if it's
> only with the VAX specific pieces of NetBSD -- there really should be some
> simple documentation explaining what code is being changed.  I don't
> see why we couldn't just add another directory under /usr/src/sys/arch/vax, 
> maybe named "doc", which would contain VAX specific notes.  Then everytime
> a group of changes are made and applied to the VAX specific code, a text
> file summarizing the changes made could be incorporated along with the
> patch.  Just a thought.

A related problem is that the changes tend to come down to
us "common users" in one huge chunk,
rather than a lot of incremental ones.  For example, witness
the many things that broke between 1.1 and 1.2.  

Of course, a lot of these things wouldn't have broken if the
developers had the hardware to test things on.  I strongly suspect
the inability of anyone to install 1.2 using only the 1.2 boot TK50
is a direct result of the developers not having access to a uVax
with a TK50.

> Since the NetBSD/vax community is so small (we only have a couple of
> people actively developing the kernel), we really need to be smarter about
> how we keep track of problems.  Be it with kernel bugs, or in installation
> setups.

I would *love* to see more technical discussion going on the port-vax
mailing list.  As in "here's my patches to make <xxx> work on
<xxx>.  Give them a try."  Heck, I've been following port-vax for
over a year and I only recall seeing only one or two very tiny patches
posted to the list.  Instead, we see the changes come in huge
chunks, without any explanation of what was changed or why, and the
mailing list is filled with complaints of "<xxx> doesn't work!"

Tim. (shoppa@triumf.ca)