Xref: utzoo news.software.b:5783 comp.sources.bugs:2561
Newsgroups: news.software.b,comp.sources.bugs
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: C News patch of 7-Sep-1990
Message-ID: <1990Sep20.181559.12046@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <1990Sep9.230537.18939@zoo.toronto.edu> <1990Sep13.203645.12937@scuzzy.mbx.sub.org> <1990Sep17.010600.11421@vicom.com> <1990Sep17.121127.25859@ni.umd.edu> <1990Sep17.210150.1586@vicom.com> <1990Sep18.222450.25228@zoo.toronto.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 90 18:15:59 GMT

I wrote:
>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.

Several people have pointed out one issue, which isn't *precisely* an
argument one way or the other but is an annoying problem:  the suggested
naming convention in our patches is badly chosen and consequently the
patches are hard to sort into chronological order.

I may have overlooked this partly because I almost never type "ls -l"
any more -- I have a shell function that does "ls -ltr", which I find
a far more useful order than alphabetical.  This does depend on some
circumstances that don't necessarily apply to users on other machines
picking up patches, however.
-- 
TCP/IP: handling tomorrow's loads today| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
OSI: handling yesterday's loads someday|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry