Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!h.cc.purdue.edu!s.cc.purdue.edu!ain
From: ain@s.cc.purdue.edu (Patrick White)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: ARP v1.1 developer files
Message-ID: <2509@s.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 17 Mar 88 15:59:18 GMT
References: <24762@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Reply-To: ain@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Patrick White)
Organization: PUCC Land, USA
Lines: 20
Keywords: bottleneck, posting, moderatorizing

In article <24762@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> kim@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) writes:
>Question for the moderators at purdue ... with something like ARP, or an
>update to an existing "established" program, like "dme" or "vt100", etc.,
>why not reduce your overhead and simple check for file integrity of the 
>shar/arc/uuencode/etc?  Seems that would reduce the turnaround time, as well

   Currently, the main bottleneck is posting -- we are limited to 100K a
day so we don't overflow spoolers, etc.  At that rate, it is fairly easy
for the three (four if we count Rob) to test everything before it needs to
be posted (ie, testing isn't delaying *anything* right now).
   Also, judging from the number of bug fixes I receive between the time
something is submitted and the time we post it, I'm not sure decreasing the
turn around time is necessarily a good idea (well.. that's just *my*
opinion anyway).

   Ok.. now you've heard from me..

-- Pat White   (co-moderator comp.sources/binaries.amiga)
UUCP: k.cc.purdue.edu!ain  BITNET: PATWHITE@PURCCVM   PHONE: (317) 743-8421
U.S.  Mail:  320 Brown St. apt. 406,    West Lafayette, IN 47906