Xref: utzoo news.software.b:5802 comp.sources.bugs:2569
Path: utzoo!utstat!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!nosun!tessi!onion!jeff
From: jeff@onion.pdx.com (Jeff Beadles)
Newsgroups: news.software.b,comp.sources.bugs
Subject: Re: C News patch of 7-Sep-1990
Message-ID: <1990Sep21.235214.2464@onion.pdx.com>
Date: 21 Sep 90 23:52:14 GMT
References: <1990Sep17.121127.25859@ni.umd.edu> <1990Sep17.210150.1586@vicom.com> <1990Sep18.222450.25228@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: Little to none.
Lines: 18

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.

Howabout a compromise of both sides  ---
	"C news patch 12 of 7-Sep-1990"

This will allow both the date of the patch, and the sequence number.  I do
think that it's easier to tell if I have all of the patches by looking at the
sequence numbers, rather than trying to figure out which came where, etc.


Just another idea,
	-Jeff
Jeff Beadles      jeff@onion.pdx.com