tcsh fix

[Bruce M Simpson]

Hello,

Misunderstandings such as this seem to be all too common in volunteer
open source projects, sadly, and the resultant slagging match on
mailing lists is counterproductive for all concerned.

On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 04:53:58PM -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> As an interested (and innocent) bystander, I'm not quite grasping why it's 
> an either/or proposition.  Why not just break the link, grab net/open's 
> /bin/csh and commit it?

Because we settled on tcsh 4 years ago, and no one has complained up
until now, and making such a change now means going through all the
vendor branch rigmarole for another shell in the base system, when
the vast majority of people using the system are happy with the
shells we already have, and alternatives are easily and readily
available from ports.

If person X wants shell Y which is not in the base system, and they
wish to use they are perfectly free to use ports or maintain a local
branch. The latter is non-trivial, the former, well, the time and
effort involved in maintaining a port is far lower, and a port
already exists for this particular case.

Being abusive towards the volunteers who maintain something largely
for free, and maintaining that something a bug when it isn't, when the
answer to person X's problems is right in front of them, doesn't
help anyone - it certainly doesn't help the person who wants the
functionality of shell Y, and it doesn't magically inspire the
volunteers who maintain the project to invest the non-trivial time
and effort in creating a CVS vendor branch to maintain shell Y,
which only person X has asked for.

Regards,
BMS