Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!mcvax!enea!tut!topelius!sibelius!pl
From: pl@sibelius.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Software Obsolescence
Message-ID: <18@sibelius.intrin.FI>
Date: Fri, 3-Apr-87 04:40:05 EST
Article-I.D.: sibelius.18
Posted: Fri Apr  3 04:40:05 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Apr-87 08:16:50 EST
References: <272@unixprt.UUCP>
Reply-To: pl@sibelius.FI (Petri Launiainen)
Organization: Intrinsic Oy, Tampere, FINLAND
Lines: 26
Keywords: News 2.11 Patch
Summary: Time for full revisions

In article <272@unixprt.UUCP> cody@unixprt.UUCP (Commando Cody) writes:

>A new clean base for [news, patch] distribution appears highly desirable.

I share this opinion: the news patches have been so lengthy and numerous,
that it surely is better to have the patchlevel zeroed again.

>     there have been numerous patch postings for 2.11 that are not
>     `official'.

This bothers me also and not only with news2.11:  too often we see messages
like 'My mailer doesn't like your mailer, so I'll send this to the news'
popping around: what's wrong with the mailers out there ?? Even here (on the
edge of the known net-verse: ever heard from a place called Finland ? {yes,
we have computers here} :-)) we get really seldom our mailings back from other
mailers, and I haven't yet heard a situation when also the second (well, let's
say third) attempt (with some alterations in the path) had also failed.

It's better to have the originators take care of the patches, even if it
takes a bit longer.  Then at least we have some kind of order here.

And please, tell your system administrator next time you get failed mail
and you think you really have found problem somewhere.
-- 
Petri Launiainen, Intrinsic Oy, Aleksis Kiven katu 11 C, 33720 Tampere, Finland
Phone: (int) 358 31 132800, USENET: pl@intrin.FI