Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cadnetix.COM!cadnetix!childs
From: childs@cadnetix.COM (David Childs)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: ARP v1.1a Programmer Bindings Update posted to comp.sys.amiga
Keywords: ARP, v1.1a, bindings, include, lib, Manx, Lattice, update
Message-ID: <3410@cadnetix.COM>
Date: 26 Jul 88 16:57:42 GMT
References: <9cRfe419OT1010cAkyg@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <2329@sugar.uu.net> <9dZxb6crpX1010qCKEs@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>
Sender: news@cadnetix.COM
Reply-To: childs@cadnetix.COM (David Childs)
Organization: Cadnetix Corp.,  Boulder, CO
Lines: 54

In article <9dZxb6crpX1010qCKEs@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> kim@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) writes:
>In article <2329@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>> I'm sorry if you're disappointed in our performance. We might be, too. But
>> we can't send stuff if there's nothing to send... and we have been trying to
>> avoid just publishing our own code to avoid the understandable accusations of
>> excessive ego that would likely ensue.
>
>The point though is that the group's propagation throughout the net is
>"questionable" ... many sites refuse to carry the alt.* subnet for whatever
>reasons, as is their right.
>
>/kim

Although I like the idea of a group to get small technical source and
executables out on the net, I think that the alt.* method is not the best
way.  I have tried to look at alt.sources.amiga and get 'not a news group.'
I really think that the type of postings Peter wants to be put in the alt
groups would be best handled in comp.sys.amiga/.tech.  Non-pure tech
source chunks can be posted in c.s.a and tech ones in c.s.a.t.  I would like
to get more source from the moderated groups also, but I hate the idea of
missing some great source or source chunks because I don't get alt groups.
I get the feeling that I would never get the BEST STUFF.

These are just my opinions.  No flames directed at Peter or anyone else.
One idea that I had for the moderated groups, would be to have the moderators
post the stuff they get, source untested, and executable only checked to see
if it runs, and then they can post the results of whether or not a program
passes the tests at a later date.

Each posting would be preceeded by:
XXXXX part n of m - UNTESTED - USE AT YOUR OWN RISK!

And at a later date, a little message:
XXXXX source and executable which were posted n days ago have been looked
over and have no computer distruct bugs in them.  (Or whatever the moderators
test for.)

This way, people like Peter will get code very soon that they
can test themselves if they want to use something, and people like me who
get to postings weeks after I get them can wait until the moderators stamp
their approval on a program.  Also, Peter and those like him could offer
to test some of the moderated postings for the moderators.  They could
then post a message saying: TESTED BY Peter da Silva - PASSED TESTS

Just an idea.  I have no idea how much more work this would be, or how
flooded the moderated groups would become.  If this is a bad idea, I'm
sure someone will let me know.

David

   David Childs               Internet: childs@cadnetix.COM
   Cadnetix Corp              UUCP: cadnetix!childs
   5775 Flatiron Pkwy               {uunet,boulder,nbires}!cadnetix!childs
   Boulder, CO 80301