Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu!jgreely From: jgreely@morganucodon.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) Newsgroups: alt.sources.d Subject: Re: Perl patches (was Re: shar 3.49 (part 2 of 2)) Message-ID: Date: 23 Sep 90 07:42:26 GMT References: <727@array.UUCP> <1990Sep21.020331.2225@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <1990Sep21.163322.12381@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1990Sep23.004118.2745@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Reply-To: J Greely Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science Lines: 20 In-reply-to: xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG's message of 23 Sep 90 00:41:18 GMT In article <1990Sep23.004118.2745@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes: >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. Wait a minute. As long as I've been paying attention, he's been posting source to a moderated source group and patches to comp.sources.bugs. If this is what happened with the initial Perl release, how long did the sources sit in the queue? Long enough for the really interested folks to ftp it and suggest changes and patches? We all know how willing Larry is to improve his software in response to user requests (which is either a virtue or a fatal personality flaw, depending on which side you're on). Regardless, this whole discussion is has nothing to do with Perl as it exists now, so I don't see why it continues (well, actually, I *do* understand, but I'm in too nice of a mood to bring it up). -- J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)