Thus spake John P. Wittkoski:
> 
> sparta@imsa.edu wrote:
> 
[sheers]
> The problem is that certain machines work only with the official 
> MRG code. Other machines work only with the ADBTEST code. We don't 
> want to make the ADBTEST code part of the official source until 
> we know it won't make someone's machine (specifically ADB) stop working.
> I haven't had time to sit down and verify that everything works in
> ADBTEST that works with MRG.
> 
Oh, no.  I'm not suggesting this at all.  Let me explain:

> It seems like you are suggesting that things like ADBTEST and intvidtest
> not even be announced until they are part of the official code. There
> are two problems with this. 
> 
> First, I personally don't have access to all the Mac models, and so 
> I can't test every machine with my new code. I depend on the
> NetBSD community to help test it. I have been toying with the idea
> of a more limited "beta test" list for the ADBTEST kernels, however.
> 
> Second, everyone on this list is so eager to get NetBSD working on
> their system that many don't care if they need to try 10 different
> kernels to find one that works on their particular model. It's hard
> to delay announcing something when there is such a clammering for
> support for new models.
Yes, everyone on this list is certainly possessed of that kind of drive, but
is everyone on the list a summary of all the MacBSD users or potential users.
It seems to me that some of the install process really scares off anyone but
the most intense and hacker-type users sometimes.

I think it's a little silly to say to people who aren't interested in the gory
details of port-mac68k that we support your machine all you have to do is go
out and get the right kernel.  Since our documentation isn't very up-to-date
iwth what is available.  I think if we want to make MacBSD more effective, we
need to start worrying more about a streamlined install sequence.  We say to
the public: "here, this is a distribution.  It configures itself relatively
nicely, isntalls on a snap on THESE MACHINES.  If you want to get into it
more, here's a set of machines that we have -current-type kernels out for."

Listen, I know that since the days of Alice, MacBSD has been chiefly concerned
with just getting the code out and working under as much hardware as possible.
The idea has been that we'll dress it up later, but I think it may be time, at
the level of support we are currently showing, to begin to put some of that
dressing on.  I know none of the devlopers have time to sit and write
documentation and keep it current.  I know none of the devlopers have time to
put together a new, beautiful set of install scripts in the near future, but
some of that (if not all) can be done form the userland by less sophisticated
users.  What I'm talking about is keeping the hacking going on a place like
port-mac68k but beginning to put together documented, even support MacBSD
distributions in a bit more user-oriented form.  I know I'd be willing to do
it.

> 
> To me, "Mainline NetBSD" is the released versions, 1.1 or 1.2. 
> All the "test" kernels that are floating around are -current kernels,
> and I think most people on this list realize that -current is
> equivilant to "beta". Efforts to improve installation, etc. should
> be focused on using the released versions, not any -current kernels,
> such as ADBTEST or intvidtest.
I agree wholeheartedly.  We jsut have to keep plugging away at getting our
code thoroughly tested and committed ot the tree.  YOu guys really do a great
job.

> 
> Just my $.02,
> 
> 	--John
> 

Gene
-- 
Gene Skonicki - gene@imsa.edu - Network Postmaster
  "May it hold you through the winter of a long night,
   and keep you from the loneliness of yourself."