Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!execu!sequoia!rpp386!jfh From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) Newsgroups: comp.sources.bugs Subject: Re: C News patch of 7-Sep-1990 Summary: a slightly better argument Message-ID: <18549@rpp386.cactus.org> Date: 20 Sep 90 04:13:27 GMT References: <1990Sep9.230537.18939@zoo.toronto.edu> <1990Sep18.222450.25228@zoo.toronto.edu> Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin TX Lines: 41 In article <1990Sep18.222450.25228@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > If there are other solid reasons for going one way or the other -- mind > you, I'm talking about numbering vs. dating, not about patch frequency > or people who won't apply patches or people who want a magic way to tell > whether they are up to date -- I'd be interested to hear them. i know better than to get involved in this ... i see the problem as being similiar to the source code groups complaints about posting README's at the head of a submission versus at the end or in the middle, etc. the amount of information conveyed by numbered patches is greater than that for dated patches. both dates and numbers are sequential. july always follows june, just as 7 always follows 6. yet there are no numbers intervening 6 and 7, unlike jun-01-90 and jul-31-90. thus, there is more information contained in the statement "this is patch #7" than in "this is patch jul-31-90". you might argue that the date "jul-31-90" conveys the additional information that this patch is recent, therefore you have the most recent patch. by way of counterargument, consider the warren tucker shar which only recently went from version 3.43 to 3.49. the date says nothing - in the case of wt-shar, 6 weeks is an eternity, in the life of something more reasonable, 6 weeks is just yesterday. the same is true for patch numbers - early releases of perl started out with 20+ patches. the current release of sc is like patchlevel 2 or 3 or something small. so the numbers provide no additional information either. that date patches require a complete enumeration of all preceeding patches is a serious detractor. numbered patches have no such requirement - quick - list all the prerequisites for patch #7. now do the same for patch jul-31-90. this alone suffices to convince me that numbered patches are more simple and concise, and IMHO ;-), superior ... -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson