From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 24 16:12:03 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91FAA16A4CE; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:12:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp2.server.rpi.edu (smtp2.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41B4A43D1D; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:12:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp2.server.rpi.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2P0C2Ew012189; Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:12:02 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20040324135211.T88409@qbhto.arg> References: <200403232227.i2NMRQn5042762@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040324164155.GA4737@dragon.nuxi.com> <20040324135211.T88409@qbhto.arg> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 19:12:01 -0500 To: Doug Barton , "David O'Brien" From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) cc: "cvs-src@FreeBSD.org" cc: "src-committers@FreeBSD.org" cc: "cvs-all@FreeBSD.org" cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin Makefile src/usr.bin/doscmd AsyncIO.c AsyncIO.h Makefile Makefile.dos PROBLEMS ParseBuffer.c README README.booting_dos bios.c callback.c callback.h cmos.c com.h config.c cp X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 00:12:03 -0000 At 1:54 PM -0800 3/24/04, Doug Barton wrote: >On Wed, 24 Mar 2004, David O'Brien wrote: >> > > Did you *really* have consensus for this?? Several committers > > said it worked fine and some said they'd like it to remain in > > /usr/src. > >My recollection of the discussion was something like this: > >1. Can we remove doscmd from the base and make it a port? >2. NO! doscmd works and I use it! >3. But we can easily make doscmd a port. >4. Oh, well, ok, but maybe we should wait till 6.0? >5. A. At this point, tjr assented to waiting, Not only did he assent, but he said MULTIPLE TIMES in multiple messages that he had decided to wait until 6.0. I think he even asked people to stop complaining because he had agreed to wait. > B. but others mentioned that if we're going to do it, let's > do it before 5.3 so that 5-stable looks more like what we > want it to look. >6. I heard no objections to 5. I heard no objections to 5A. People didn't object to 5B, because they thought 5A pretty much settled the matter. Particularly after tjr said "HEY, I've already agreed to wait!". ongoing disclaimer: I personally don't care about doscmd... Don't bring it back on my account. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu