Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!vsi1!zorch!xanthian From: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) Newsgroups: alt.sources.d Subject: Re: Perl patches (was Re: shar 3.49 (part 2 of 2)) Message-ID: <1990Sep23.004118.2745@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Date: 23 Sep 90 00:41:18 GMT References: <727@array.UUCP> <1990Sep21.020331.2225@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <1990Sep21.163322.12381@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Organization: SF-Bay Public-Access Unix Lines: 28 peltz@cerl.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) writes: > xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >> the host site, and Boom! -- another patch. Since no "patch" was available >> for my home system in those days, _upload_ perl, _patch_ perl, _download_ >> perl, _delete_ perl on the host, iterate 25 more times. >You're telling us that you could bring up perl on your home system, but not >patch? Now that is truly amazing. If you check, you'll notice the words "_compile_ perl" occur nowhere in the quote. This was long before a compiler existed for my system robust enough to handle that much source code, but archiving it away for later days was possible. I think the point is still being missed here. Larry Wall had, when he release perl, about 26 patches _in_hand_, but rather than make the first release at patch level 26, released patchlevel 0 and 26 patch postings. Good sense would suggest limiting the work of patching _when_ _the_ _patch_ _is_ _in_ _hand_ to the site of origin, rather than multiplying the work by distributing unpatched code. This is not a call to stop using patch, not a call to stop distributing beta code, not a call to stop distributing patches, just a call to use some sense when doing software releases. Why the arguments? Does someone think it made more sense the way Larry did it? If so, why? It caused more work, used more bandwidth, and came to the same product at the end. Kent, the man from xanth.