Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!hp4nl!utrcu1!mi.eltn.utwente.nl!klamer From: klamer@mi.eltn.utwente.nl (Klamer Schutte -- Universiteit Twente) Newsgroups: comp.os.minix Subject: Re: comp.os.minix splitup Message-ID: Date: 6 Mar 91 08:42:31 GMT References: <1991Mar1.213647.13550@mp.cs.niu.edu> <30737@usc> <9146@star.cs.vu.nl> Sender: news@utrcu1.UUCP Organization: University of Twente, BSC-El Lines: 29 (About a splitup to comp.os.minix & comp.os.minix.sources) This proposed splitup leaves me with a question: Where should fixes and patches go? Both alternatives are appealing. The advantage of posting fixes to the sources group is that by archiving the sources group one can come up to the most recent version. The advantage of the posting fixes to the non-sources group is that the usual combination of a bug report + fix is seen by everybody. And what to do with the the big bug reports with tiny fixes? Or, otherwise, with updates from the author to a program? And a remark to Andy: Yes, i will enjoy a splitup as proposed. This means i can at last make an entry in my kill file which deletes non-interesting PC, Mac and Amiga questions in the non-source group (Provided that bug reports and fixes go to the source group). (Speaking for many on usenet (rather than comp.os.minix by mail) i am not worried about my incoming bandwidth. I am rather worried about the possibility to shift incoming news quickly). Klamer -- Klamer Schutte Faculty of electrical engineering -- University of Twente, The Netherlands klamer@mi.eltn.utwente.nl {backbone}!mcsun!mi.eltn.utwente.nl!klamer