Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!purdue!ames!vsi1!lmb
From: lmb@vicom.com (Larry Blair)
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Where does cnews live?
Message-ID: <1989Aug8.170802.20975@vicom.com>
Date: 8 Aug 89 17:08:02 GMT
References: <28272@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> <1989Aug7.195904.13429@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: lmb@vicom.COM (Larry Blair)
Organization: VICOM Systems Inc., San Jose, CA
Lines: 22

In article <1989Aug7.195904.13429@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
=In article <28272@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> mwolf@Teknowledge.COM (Michael Wolf) writes:
=>I notice that there seem to be a fair number of patches for
=>cnews.  Is there an anonymous ftp site that is the designated
=>archive site for cnews?...
=
=Well, I'm not sure 3 qualifies as "a fair number" -- unless you're counting
=unofficial patches from others -- but admittedly there is a need for making
=the patches available from archives.  The full set of official patches to
=date has been sent to the comp.sources.unix archive sites, and should be
=available from them shortly.  Future official patches will be sent there
=at the same time as they are posted.

Which brings us back to the issue of patch numbering.  If the patches for
C News were numbered like every other piece of net.software, we would
know that there were only 3 and we would know if we had missed any.

I still don't understand what the problem with the conventional numbering
is.  It is not to late to change.  Is this just a case of NIH?

-- 
Larry Blair   ames!vsi1!lmb   lmb@vicom.com