Xref: utzoo comp.sources.d:6597 comp.sources.wanted:15557 alt.sources.d:1556 alt.sources.wanted:1000 news.groups:28361
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!midway!gargoyle!chinet!laird
From: laird@chinet.chi.il.us (Laird J. Heal)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,comp.sources.wanted,alt.sources.d,alt.sources.wanted,news.groups
Subject: Re: comp.sources.reviewed -> comp.sources.posix (+ c.s.u controversy)
Message-ID: <1991Mar03.152123.17801@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: 3 Mar 91 15:21:23 GMT
References: <1991Feb28.160555.8446@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM> <1991Mar1.082855.149@tfl.dk> <1991Mar2.194702.18667@tridom.uucp>
Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX
Lines: 20

In article <1991Mar2.194702.18667@tridom.uucp> wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US writes:
>Let me use my ECU as a straw dog for comparing the various groups.

>Had c.s.reviewed been around, a ready mechanism would have been
>in place that perhaps would have eliminated *all* those patches.
>While the net would have had to wait for ECU 3 a while longer
>(breathlessly, no doubt :-)), many would also have been spared
>seeing a rash of patches, including one that Broke the published version
>and had to have a patch to a patch.

Addressing only POSIX-compliant software is very good, but why not restate
the newsgroup as specifically for software going through a beta or gamma
test phase?  That is, put it out so people can bang on it, apply patches,
and then post the final result to groups which get archived.

For things like "compress" implemented in COBOL, there are always either
alt.sources or comp.sources.misc.
-- 
Laird J. Heal                           The Usenet is dead!
Here:  laird@chinet.chi.il.us		Long live the Usenet!