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: .binaries & .sources
Message-ID: <2585@s.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 24 Mar 88 17:02:11 GMT
References: <367@brambo.UUCP>
Reply-To: ain@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Patrick White)
Organization: PUCC Land, USA
Lines: 24

In article <367@brambo.UUCP>  writes:
>Is there a reason that our binaries and sources groups are not
>organized into volumes (like .sources.unix etc.)?  I'd like to start
>archiving some of the stuff, but it is hard without a unique and
>common way to organize the aricles.
>Moderators: have you thought about doing this?

   We have indeed thought about this from time to time, and if you can
get to the archives (or look through an index), you will see that we have
organized it that way.  When we started, we decided to keep the program
names rather than use some sort of cryptic name (v07i038.Z is *so* meaningful
when you are out there ftp'ing stuff -- sure you know where to find it, but
what's in it?)
   Currently I am slowly working on setting up some automation at this end,
and when I do, the archive name for each posting will probably become part
of the peudo-headers we use.

   If anybody has some opinions on this, drop me some mail and lets discuss
it -- most decisions on how we do things were made when we started, but they
*are* subject to change if enough people ask for it.

-- Pat White   (co-moderator comp.sources/binaries.amiga)
ARPA/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