Newsgroups: comp.windows.interviews
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!cunixf.cc.columbia.edu!cunixa.cc.columbia.edu!das15
From: das15@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Douglas A Scott)
Subject: What is the deal with the 2.6 fixes?
Message-ID: <1991May30.180620.16707@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>
Sender: usenet@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (The Network News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
Reply-To: das15@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Douglas A Scott)
Organization: Columbia University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 30 May 1991 18:06:20 GMT

Could someone tell me the relationship between the 2.6 source in the stanford
archive and the 13-odd fixes that are also there?  I gather that most if not
all of those fixes have *not* been applied to the archived source.  Are the
fixes all "approved", i.e., has it been shown that they all repair proven
bugs?

If this is old news, please just send me some email.

Thanks!

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Douglas Scott          Columbia University Computer Music Studio 
Internet: <doug@woof.columbia.edu> <das15@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu>
UUCP: ...!columbia!woof!zardoz!doug          Phone: (703)765-4771