Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!oliveb!sun!rishathra!page
From: page%rishathra@Sun.COM (Bob Page)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: alt.sources archiving
Message-ID: <97025@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 31 Mar 89 20:26:02 GMT
References: <727@vector.UUCP> <10985@well.UUCP> <425@oetl1.oetl.UUCP> <1588@fig.bbn.com>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: page@sun.UUCP (Bob Page)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 33

[somebody menthioned I should be reading this newsgroup.]

Randy O'Meara wrote:
)Take a look at c.s.amiga and c.b.amiga for an excellent example of
)very functional (and consistent) naming conventions.

rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) replied:
)Credit where it's due...  Bob uses a program he got from me called "post"
)that does most of that standardization.

I do use such a program, and it's been an immense help.  However, it
only helps with the standardization of the headers, not of the archive
name, which is what the original discussion was about.  I do not
follow the comp.sources.unix archive name convention.

Essentially, for those who have not looked, I have broken the archive
into subsections by functionality.  I get to choose which category the
posting belongs in, and sometimes my choices appear arbitrary.  Within
each category, all file names are unique.  If 'foo' is in the archive
and I get another one to post, I rename it if it's from a different
author or call it 'fooXX' where XX is some form of the version number
(I toss any separator between 'major' and 'minor' revision numbers).
The result is that version 1.10 and 11.0 have the same archive name,
but there's no problem with that since it's expected that you'll
toss old versions.  If you don't (some people don't), by the time
version 11.0 comes, I hardly see a need for version 1.10 to exist,
so overwriting it seems OK to me.

Anyway, a public thanks to R$ for making my moderator's job a lot easier,
and to jpn for showing us the way.

..bob
Bob Page    page@sun.com    sun!page    415/336-2745