Xref: utzoo news.software.b:2293 comp.sources.d:3749
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!epimass!jbuck
From: jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: news.software.b,comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: C News production release bugs
Message-ID: <3309@epimass.EPI.COM>
Date: 13 Jun 89 18:13:34 GMT
References: <1989Jun13.034954.144@utstat.uucp>
Reply-To: jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck)
Followup-To: news.software.b
Organization: Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, CA
Lines: 22

In article <1989Jun13.034954.144@utstat.uucp> geoff@utstat.uucp (Geoff Collyer) writes:
>Disclaimer: Henry and I do not subscribe to the patch-of-the-day club.
>We are even less happy about software whose patches precede it.
>However, the following bugs, all involving control messages, need
>fixing.  We know of no other bugs in the production release.

Geoff, if you were a member of the patch-of-the-day club, you would
know how to issue a patch.  The patch you post does not change any
version numbers or strings, does not modify a "patchlevel" file, or
anything of the sort.  It will be extremely difficult for people to
ascertain which version of C news they have if you persist in handling
bug fixes in this fashion; we'll be back to the bad old days of 2.10.2
news with a different set of local hacks on every system on the net.

Please, for the sake of your own reputation, be more careful in the
future as to how you distribute patches.  Larry Wall's system actually
does work; he successfully got the net as a whole to apply 40 (count
'em, 40) patches to rn and the sucker actually works, because there
are version strings and a patchlevel file and other stuff that lets
you have confidence that the patch was done right.
-- 
-- Joe Buck	jbuck@epimass.epi.com, uunet!epimass.epi.com!jbuck