Xref: utzoo comp.sources.d:6628 comp.sources.wanted:15639 alt.sources.d:1580 alt.sources.wanted:1037 news.groups:28656
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!kd4nc!n4hgf!wht
From: wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US (Warren Tucker)
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: <358@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US>
Date: 8 Mar 91 18:33:24 GMT
References: <1991Feb28.160555.8446@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM> <1991Mar1.082855.149@tfl.dk> <1991Mar2.194702.18667@tridom.uucp> <1991Mar03.152123.17801@chinet.chi.il.us>
Reply-To: wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US (Warren Tucker)
Followup-To: comp.sources.d
Organization: Amateur Radio Station N4HGF
Lines: 19

In article <1991Mar03.152123.17801@chinet.chi.il.us> laird@chinet.chi.il.us (Laird J. Heal) writes:
>In article <1991Mar2.194702.18667@tridom.uucp> wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US writes:
>>Had c.s.reviewed been around, a ready mechanism would have been
>>in place that perhaps would have eliminated *all* those patches.
>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.

I think you've got something there.
Maybe what we need is a *mailing list* with a moderator (list
manager) and a group of reviewers who work together to produce
"better" versions of code that then get submitted to one of the
established groups.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warren Tucker, TuckerWare     emory!n4hgf!wht or wht@n4hgf.Mt-Park.GA.US
"An ANSI C elephant: just like the real one, but the position, shape and
length of the trunk and tail are left to the vendor's discretion." -- me