From owner-freebsd-current  Sat Aug  2 16:51:18 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA22473
          for current-outgoing; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (root@time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA22468
          for <current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:51:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (jkh@localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.8.6/8.6.9) with ESMTP id QAA16929; Sat, 2 Aug 1997 16:50:25 -0700 (PDT)
To: dmaddox@scsn.net
cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: ports-current/packages-current discontinued 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 02 Aug 1997 18:45:36 EDT."
             <19970802184536.51442@scsn.net> 
Date: Sat, 02 Aug 1997 16:50:25 -0700
Message-ID: <16924.870565825@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>     How can one stick to the technical points while simultaneously
> somehow implicitly acknowledging that this is not strictly a technical
> issue?  I don't know enough linguistic contortions to manage an email
> like that.

I never said it would be easy. :-)

>     Agreed, emphatically...  But there _was_ no debate on this issue, at
> least none in a public forum.  Tcl8.x just appeared out of nowhere.

I think it's an acknowledged point that this could have been handled a
lot better, and it's my hope that we can still come to some agreement
as to how to handle this now, I'm just trying to keep everyone's back
fur reasonably smoothed down in the meantime or we're only going to
spend the next week shouting at one another.  Take it from someone with
far too much experience with the latter.

					Jordan