> Note, however, that saying "the sparc port should have theo's code in
> it" isn't a valid complaint -- because theo's code has never been
> offered to the sparc port's maintainer, to put in, as far as i know.
> Theo doesn't seem to be willing to give out his sources -- even to put
> them up for anon-ftp, as far as i can tell.

i've given a few bits. i wasn't happy with the "feel good" quotient i
got back from doing so. when something doesn't "feel good" enough,
sometimes one just gives up.

> How can you complain that we've not integrated his changes, when we
> can't even _get_ them.

a clear path for resolving this situation has been in the the
works. or so core has told me in private email. email conversations
from months ago. chris -- what a lot of these people are saying IS
"resolve the stupid situation, core -- you're being childish!"

it has been 7 months since i was kicked out from being port-sparc
maintainer. you didn't even tell a lot of people of the situation.
for a small time you acted as if it was a private internal affair that
nothing should be known about. then you came out and admitted what
situation it was. what it amounts to was "CLEARLY private and CLEARLY
personal mail of an insulting manner towards a person who happens to
be mailbombing your machine is not acceptable, IF that person is also
involved in NetBSD." (spot situation: you and your wife both work at
the same place. things are rough, and at home you have a huge fight.
she tape records it and (without your permission) plays it back to
your boss at work, and he fires you for it."

it's been made clear again that the entire premise is stupid, and
you've even sent me email saying that large parts of what core did was
really stupid, and that you'd like to resolve the situation, and here
you are attacking my agenda?

what is your agenda, chris: is it the one where core is coming up with
a document that all port-masters have to sign (which will likely say
that your private and personal email to other people who happen to be
in the same project, but attack your machine and then forward mail
that you sent to them privately) .. is it that agenda?

roughly said: you stole my baby from me, and now you expect me to
continue sending you child care funds? i will support the baby if it
is mine, but why would i want to do it otherwise?

for the sheer twistedness of listening to you attack me publically??

> Note
> also that responding to that by saying: "well, _he_ should integrate
> them" makes no sense -- if he were willing to give out the changes,
> then why should he require that he _waste his own time_ integrating
> them?

i want to commit them myself. i did that since the first import of
the sparc code into the tree.

> He won't send diffs -- he's already said that that's too much
> work.

more than 10,000 lines of diff -bc, and a bunch of new files.  pk has
indicated that he has no problem with me having commit access (right,
paul? i think you say that in four pieces of email). but core doesn't
give me source tree access to do what the port-master considers ok.

> but if that's too much work, why does he want to do _more_ than
> that?

more than what? i'm not doing any port-sparc source code development
at the moment. the political situation does not give me enough rewards
to either

	(a) give my work out. everyone does something for something.
	    the good feelings at the moment are not good enough.
	(b) continue sparc development. i'm working on another port, and
	    being paid to do so (no, chris, you are not the only person
	    paid to do full-time development, and you've known it for
	    months too). in a few months i'll be working on another port,
	    also being paid for that. the code will likely remain free in
	    some form, but it isn't clear what that form will be. some
	    people are talking about forming a new BSD, one without politics.
	    or at least the politics that really hurt me, and won't let up.
	    if something can be salvaged (guys, it's been 7 months already)
	    that would perhaps be ok. but definately the good feelings
	    have to come back.


> It seems to me that theo can't claim to be acting from a
> position of 'good faith' unless he's willing to distribute his sources
> publically...

a lot of people have said the same about the mbone code, and
absolutely torched van & mccanne publically. my reasons for
withholding code are not the same as the folks at LBL, but that
doesn't mean they are wrong. the premise you are using is that "code
theo sweated over should be completely free or he is acting in "bad
faith".

you are making me angry, chris. but that's ok -- i know how to deal
with that now. i'll just go caving instead... and very soon it will be
8 months.