by homeworld.cygnus.com with SMTP; 29 Nov 1998 21:41:34 -0000
	by lorax.ubergeeks.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id QAA00925;
	Sun, 29 Nov 1998 16:40:58 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from adrian@lorax.ubergeeks.com)
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 1998 16:40:58 -0500 (EST)
From: ADRIAN Filipi-Martin <adrian@ubergeeks.com>
Reply-To: Adrian Filipi-Martin <adrian@ubergeeks.com>
To: Todd Whitesel <toddpw@best.com>
cc: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, art@stacken.kth.se, alicia@internetpaper.com,
        netbsd-advocacy@NetBSD.ORG, FreeBSD-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG,
        advocacy@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: Merging Net/Free/Open-BSD together against Linux
In-Reply-To: <199811290635.WAA28011@shell17.ba.best.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.981129162602.867B-100000@lorax.ubergeeks.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Sat, 28 Nov 1998, Todd Whitesel wrote:

> > > 	If there is suficcient interest/manpower to make it more than a
> > > one-man show, I'll set up a 3-way CVS mirror at UVa or maybe a local ISP.
> > > We can tag an initial starting point and start merging into one of the
> > > three trees.  If this bears fruit we can then re-merge any recent changes
> > > and make it a new baseline for userland.  (Yes, there is undoubtedly a lot
> > > more to consider, but it's a start.)
[...]
> Provide a tree that people can use to merge individual userland programs,
> and publish status reports on how each individual program is doing: whether
> it is unified, and which of the 3 projects has adopted the unified version.

	This is a valid approach.  But I think it has more logistical
problems.  Do all three BSD's maintain identicle copies of the source in
their CVS repositories?  This somewhat complicated.  Check-in's are
multiplied three fold.

	It makes more sense in my mind to have a single repository for
working this out.  If not an independent repository, then at the very
least a branch off one repository. Then each camp as they see fit could
drop /usr soruces and rely upon the unified versions.

	I really want to take as neutral as possible approach to this. 
Metaphorically, unified sources would be to gods.  They are free to take
it or leave it.  I tend to believe if it's good, it will be accepted. 
Also relying upon one group as a primary repository seems politically
risky.

> It is vastly more important that the _easy_ merges get done than that _all_
> the merges get done.

	Absolutely.  Get the easy ones done first.  (That's why the
kerel's are left for last^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hnot included. :-)

> I suspect that the reason most of the past projects failed is because too
> many people refused to even _start_ on them until they were certain that
> the entire stated goal of the project could be completed. Screw that!! A
> partial success still has much benefit for everyone.
> 
> Todd Whitesel
> toddpw @ best.com

	I think I have already recieved enough interest to get things
rolling.  I'm game for trying without much more aproval or discussion.  As
I said before, if the fruits are ripe and sweet, I doubt they will be
overlooked. 

	Adrian
--
[ adrian@ubergeeks.com -- Ubergeeks Consulting -- http://www.ubergeeks.com/ ]