Path: utzoo!utstat!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!stc!miclon!nreadwin
From: nreadwin@micrognosis.co.uk (Neil Readwin)
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: C News patch of 7-Sep-1990
Message-ID: <1990Sep18.100833.5470@micrognosis.co.uk>
Date: 18 Sep 90 10:08:33 GMT
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>
Organization: Micrognosis, London, UK.
Lines: 20

In article <1990Sep17.210150.1586@vicom.com> lmb@vicom.com (Larry Blair) writes:
>The problem with their patch scheme is that many admins are unsure if it is 
>safe to apply a patch or if they are up to date

I assume you mean that some people are worried about whether 14-Apr follows
18-Jan. This is not a problem since every patch now has a complete list of 
patches, both as Prereq's and in the patch to PATCHDATES. As for the second
point, given patchlevel 18 or patchdate 7-Sep-90, how is anyone going to 
know which is the most up to date ?

Personally I don't like the patch date scheme, but these are not real
problems.

>As long as they feel that they need to `sell' the net on their software, and
>as long as it is the defacto standard (which it is becoming), they bear a
>definite responsibility to the rest of the net.

IMHO, this is simply not true.
-- 
 Disclaimer: 818  Phone: +44 71 528 8282  E-mail: nreadwin@micrognosis.co.uk