Quoting cgd@broadcom.com (cgd@broadcom.com):
> At Fri, 13 Dec 2002 16:22:01 +0000 (UTC), "Perry E. Metzger" wrote:
> > I know of a couple of people still using rsh, but only a couple. I
> > cannot recall the last time I used it myself, and I'm hardly the only
> > person in that position.
> 
> Uh, then why not do the right thing, and convince the maintainers of
> CVS to take back such a change?

The "official" CVS has been sort of straggling and risks forks
galore.  It's really a shame that there seems to be little forward
momentum on it to make real improvements.  There are proprietary
suites making inroads because they are easier to use.  I have my
scripts to add directories and such, but I can't do things easily
like pull down all of sys/ but NOT pull down platforms I don't
care about (ARM, pmax, etc).  When I was pulling over a modem, this
made a big difference.  It's a lack in CVS.

So my hope would be to fix it here (and perhaps FreeBSD and go
get yelled at in OpenBSD) and offer it to the CVS folks who will
toss a coin and maybe take it.  or not.  I don't care.

Use of rsh should be the exceptional case.

> Why should we be different than the standard software?  Difference to
> be better-for-you is still difference... and there do exist some
> people who find consistency w/ standard tools behaviour desirable.
> 
> I don't see why we should have _any_ modifications to the actual CVS
> sources in the NetBSD source tree, at all.
> 
> I maintain a personal copy of 'cvs' based on the master sources with
> some mods, because ... yes, that's right, I've made some changes which
> were better-for-me (and, of course, I think better in the absolute),
> but which were rejected for inclusion in the master CVS sources.
> 
> Does that mean that i should get NetBSD to put them into the NetBSD
> source tree?

You can offer and if they make sense for the Better Good ...