Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!gatech!uflorida!mailrus!iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi
From: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: bugs
Summary: was Re: v001i001: toaduu, assembly language fast uuencode/decode
Message-ID: <4670@bsu-cs.UUCP>
Date: 9 Nov 88 11:56:41 GMT
References: <4648@bsu-cs.UUCP> <36085@clyde.ATT.COM>
Reply-To: dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
Organization: CS Dept, Ball St U, Muncie, Indiana
Lines: 25

In article <36085@clyde.ATT.COM> rcj@moss.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) writes:
>In article <4648@bsu-cs.UUCP> W8SDZ@SIMTEL20.ARMY.MIL (Keith Petersen) writes:
>}Bug report:...

In the interest of accuracy, I wanted to point out that comments within
square brackets, usually with "-- R.D." at the end, are from the
moderator and not from the person sending the program.

While we are on the subject, here's something that I wonder about.

If I find some shortcomings (ahem) in a submission, which of the
following two alternatives is better?

-- posting it and simply documenting bugs that I find

-- or not posting it and sending feedback to the author and waiting for
him to either fix it or ask me to go ahead and post anyway

In the first case, I risk offending the author (e.g. "Why didn't you
tell me instead of slandering me all over the net?") and possibly the
user. In the second case I risk offending the author again, make more
work for me, delay postings, and have the public scream "censorship!"
to boot.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi