Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!umcp-cs!mark
From: mark@umcp-cs.UUCP (Mark Weiser)
Newsgroups: net.sources.bugs
Subject: Re: bug in ctype.c, and a replacement for it
Message-ID: <4054@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Oct-86 00:51:29 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.4054
Posted: Wed Oct 29 00:51:29 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 29-Oct-86 02:48:48 EST
References: <725@qantel.UUCP> <2405@j.cc.purdue.edu> <730@qantel.UUCP>
Reply-To: mark@umcp-cs.UUCP (Mark Weiser)
Organization: University of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Sci.
Lines: 25

>In article <2405@j.cc.purdue.edu> rsk@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Wombat) writes:
>Four things; first off, it is common courtesy to report such bugs in
>posted software to the author *first*, thus giving that author the
>opportunity to correct them in whatever way the author feels best.
>There are exceptions--for instance, truly nasty bugs in important
>pieces of software.  This is not one of those cases.

I do not agree with this sentiment.  It is common usenet practice,
and also a courtesy to the other users of publically posted software,
to post bug fixes as well.  Who knows when the author will get around
to fixing the bugs, or posting the fixes or the new version?  And who
knows when some other user may need just this fix, however trivial,
that I just came up with?  Truly nasty bugs only?  If it costs
me an hour to fix, and a posting can save someone else that hour,
that is nasty enough for me.

I have sent code to net.sources, and gotten both postings and letters
with bugs back.  I found the postings particularly flattering: I
took them to mean that the poster thought my software sufficiently
important that the bug fixes (or improvements) ought to get around.
-mark
-- 
Spoken: Mark Weiser 	ARPA:	mark@maryland	Phone: +1-301-454-7817
CSNet:	mark@umcp-cs 	UUCP:	{seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!mark
USPS: Computer Science Dept., University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742