Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!uhnix1!splut!jay
From: jay@splut.UUCP (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Patch release frequency (was Re: When is C News being released?)
Message-ID: <2646@splut.UUCP>
Date: 15 May 89 12:22:56 GMT
References: <24133@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <1989May9.191034.3424@utzoo.uucp> <918@twwells.uucp> <3515@alembic.ACS.COM> <1989May12.154952.3818@telly.on.ca>
Reply-To: jay@splut.UUCP (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 25

In article <1989May12.154952.3818@telly.on.ca> evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes:
>To me, the issue is not whether patches are necessary, but the frequency
>with which they're issued. Most of the elm patches were marked medium to
>low priority. Why could they not be lumped together in a single patch,
>rather than a few little ones? Why could one not set milestones, say every
>quarter, at which time all non-crucial fixes done since the last patch
>are sent out as a single patch?

>Of course, patches which fix fatal errors get sent right away. But that
>was not the case with elm.

Fatal errors for who? Just one machine? Or everyone?

All of the patches so far, except 3 and 5, fix bugs specific to one
environment. (Possibly patch 6 doesn't, but I haven't gotten that one
yet.) I don't accept that that kind of thing should have to wait even as
long as a month to get distributed, and that's too often according to
your statement above. If the stuff won't run on my system, I want the
fix now if it's known, not two months from now.

-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL   | Never ascribe to malice that which can
uucp:        uunet!nuchat!   (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
    hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
{killer,bellcore}!texbell!          | "Less great!" "Tastes filling!"