Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!paperboy!meissner From: meissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner) Newsgroups: alt.sources.d Subject: Re: Perl patches (was Re: shar 3.49 (part 2 of 2)) Message-ID: Date: 26 Sep 90 20:17:18 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@OSF.ORG Organization: Open Software Foundation Lines: 27 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. 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. My dim memory is that Larry sent the version 1 of perl off to comp.sources.unix, and it sat there for a bit. He also made it available for anonymous FTP. By the time the time c.s.u was ready to post it, there were 26 patches. I sometimes think that folks don't realize how diverse the UNIX systems are out there (and that Larry's code tends to poke in a lot of dark corners). -- Michael Meissner email: meissner@osf.org phone: 617-621-8861 Open Software Foundation, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, 02142 Do apple growers tell their kids money doesn't grow on bushes?