Xref: utzoo comp.sources.d:3650 news.groups:9605 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ssbell!kent From: kent@ssbell.UUCP (Kent Landfield) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,news.groups Subject: Re: Posting Patches; Was Patch frequency Keywords: Patches, News Message-ID: <479@ssbell.UUCP> Date: 18 May 89 04:12:46 GMT References: <340@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> Reply-To: kent@ssbell.UUCP (ssbell Admin) Followup-To: news.groups Organization: Sterling Software, FSG-IMD, Bellevue, NE. Lines: 63 In article <340@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel B. Del More Nashua) writes: >In article paf@uts.amdahl.com (Paul A. Fronberg) writes: >> >>One is that the patches may not be posted in a commonly read newsgroup. > >Quite true, and a royal pain as well! > >>I claim that all offical patches should be issued through the moderated source >>group that the program was originally posted. This would allow easier >>administration of fixes and put them in a known group. > >This is an idea that has alot of merit. While it would result in some >inconvienence, in that the patch would have to pass through the >moderator resulting in some delay reaching the end user of the program, >it would introduce some degree of consistency into the posting of >patches. It would also introduce the ability to archive the patches instead of having to hunt for them or post requests to the net only to have your spool directory swamped by the many good people that respond by sending the requested patch. >And it would also be nice if their was a companion "patch" newsgroup for >each of the newsgroups to which sources are posted, eg. >"comp.sources.unix.p" or something similar. This is probably overkill in that it would (if moderated groups) require eight different moderators as the sources groups currently stand. There is not enough patches traffic to really justify a patch newsgroup for each sources group. >In summary, the advantages to posting patches to a moderated newsgroup >are consistency of format, and absence of "chatter" in the newsgroup >which in turn would allow archive sites to process these postings in a >more efficient manner. It would also allow the community at large the ability to retrieve patches from the published archive sites. Currently its a matter of asking a neighbor or posting a request to the net. >The disadvantages are increased time for the posting to reach the end >user. This is true of any source related/moderated group. I would *not* like to see comp.sources.unix become unmoderated just to get the sources to me faster. The moderators play an important role of increasing the quality and consistency of postings. >I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say about the subject, >is the idea worth further investigation and possible call for >discussion. A Call for Discussion has already been initiated by myself for the creation of the newsgroup comp.sources.patches. Judging by my mailbox, I am not the only one who feels that the current "all over the place" posting of patches is unacceptable. -Kent+ ---- Kent Landfield UUCP: kent@ssbell Sterling Software FSG/IMD INTERNET: kent%ssbell@uunet.uu.net 1404 Ft. Crook Rd. South Phone: (402) 291-8300 Bellevue, NE. 68005-2969 FAX: (402) 291-4362