Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!msuinfo!convex.cl.msu.edu!jap From: jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.misc Subject: Re: FACTS ABOUT WB2.0 (Was: Re:WB2.0 for non-A3000) Message-ID: <1991Feb12.175404.26035@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> Date: 12 Feb 91 17:54:04 GMT References: <44170@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <43944@ut-emx.uucp> Sender: news@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu Organization: Michigan State University Lines: 23 mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: >In article <43944@ut-emx.uucp> greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: > Well, Setpatch may end up being used under 2.0 (speculation -- not developer > knowledge, mind you) to pick up a couple of last-minute bugs, I'd prefer it > to be completely solid. >It's actually speculation about naming, not about whether setpatch >will be used. >Given the way CBM is acting about bugs, I'd be surprised if the ROM >version of 2.0 used setpath on release. Actually, no matter how much debugging you do, there will always be more of them CATS people realize this. I think (I don't know for sure) that C:SetPatch is a permanent thing. In the initial release of a new OS, SetPatch will do nothing. As new bugs are found and fixed, CBM will distribute a new SetPatch that takes care of them. Ideally, this saves a lot of hassle for users. By makeing SetPatch standard, and puting it in the standard S:Startup-Sequence, nobody would actually ever have to modify that file. (Unless they want to get rid of junk they know they don't want).