On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 02:03:40PM -0500, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> > No. (I use "rsync", so I have to remember to set RSYNC_RSH=ssh.)
> > Enough of my problems...
>
> When I read this, I thought maybe you caught the dry humor I
> intended. But considering later statements, maybe not. In either
> case, good point. :^>

I do get it, I think.

> Sheesh. It's not like I have commit rights or am going to bitch
> (at least not publicly) if cvs(1) behavior changes. But Itojun
> *asked* for opinions. I have one. My apologies!

No need to apologize.

> > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 11:10:50AM -0500, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> > > > Yes. ;-) Now answer this: does anyone honestly use cvs over rsh
> > > > anymore?
> > > Yes. All of my developers do on a daily basis.
> > you speak for unequivocally, "against". In fact, since you now hold
> > the quorum, we should probably just ask you first before doing
> > anything.
>
> Um... I'm a little unclear on what I did to deserve that response.

What I was responding to, was the "most people agree with me"
rhetorical flim-flam implied by "all of my developers". I come across
a little too harsh, sometimes, too.

> You said "does anyone use rsh any more?" I (and, I'll note, several
> others) said, "Um, yes, actually we do." Now, just because it wasn't
> the answer you wanted or thought you were going to get doesn't give
> you the right to misrepresent my intentions.
>
> > to represent? There are greater than one hundred NetBSD developers
> > scattered all over the world, using "ssh" to connect to the main cvs
> > server (over the Internet), vs. ???.
>
> And NetBSD should be used only to develop NetBSD? Is that really the
> prevailing sentiment?

No, but I do think it would have been quite enough to say "Yes, we
do", rather than representing the proposal as an abandonment of all
that is holy (or even as a great inconvenience to your enterprise,
which it can't possibly be).

> ??? represents, to me, using NetBSD in a standard, corporate,
> production environment. I don't right now. I wish I could, but my
> employer is a bit more difficult to convince than some. But, unless
> I'm mistaken, there *are* some people around here doing just that.
>
> > Frankly because, that would inconvenience me, as opposed to you. I
> > guess I was being selfish.
>
> How would that inconvenience you?

Now who doesn't have a sense of humour?

> Unless you're explicitly
> overwriting the $CVS_RSH shell variable, in which case you'll still
> get what you asked for, having a default for the shell come from the
> system will get exactly the same effect without requiring that
> patches be applied with each new import of CVS sources.

It's a minor matter no matter how you slice it. Chances are, cvs could
merge the *two* *line* change automatically, and the conflict would be
trivial to resolve in any case. The effort required by the end user
who happens to be on the wrong end of it, is also quite small.

Frederick