Xref: utzoo news.groups:9606 comp.sources.d:3651 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ssbell!kent From: kent@ssbell.UUCP (Kent Landfield) Newsgroups: news.groups,comp.sources.d Subject: Re: comp.sources.patches - CALL FOR DISCUSSION Keywords: Patches, News, Archivers Message-ID: <480@ssbell.UUCP> Date: 18 May 89 05:24:22 GMT References: <475@ssbell.UUCP> <3241@ncar.ucar.edu> Reply-To: kent@ssbell.UUCP (Kent Landfield) Followup-To: news.groups Organization: Sterling Software, FSG-IMD, Bellevue, NE. Lines: 55 In article <3241@ncar.ucar.edu> woods@handies.UCAR.EDU (Greg Woods) writes: >I thought that this is what comp.sources.bugs was for: bug reports and >patches. The volume there is hardly overwhelming; why can't we just agree >to post all the patches to programs that came out in comp.sources.* to >comp.sources.bugs? I don't think a new group is needed; we already have >one for this purpose. From my newsgroups file: comp.sources.bugs Bug reports, fixes, discussion for posted sources The problem with comp.sources.bugs as I see it is that it is there for *too many* purposes. There is too much discussion and chatter in the group for automatic archivers to be able to pick out the "diamonds and leave the coal". The patches that come through comp.sources.bugs do not have headers standardized so that archivers can save the patches consistently. Stepping back a minute, someone might say..., Awwwww. The poor archivers can't archive the fixes to the software the community is contributing, sharing and using. Too bad... as they read the article with rn. It is *too* bad. The patches are not tracked in such a manner that net users could determine the current patch level of any software posted to a sources group. It is a shame that I have to take the time to locate someone who has a patch that I missed just because I took a day off (seldom :-) ) while my "automatic sources archiver" is merrily storing the posted sources without human intervention. I'll grant you that the volume in comp.sources.bugs is not overwelming but that is not the point. We need to be able to track the fixes to the sources just as effectively as we track the sources themselves. I can review an index of every package posted to comp.sources.unix by just reading an informational posting in the latest volume. (thanks rich) I can not do that for the patches. I for one think this is a major missing piece to the distribution and maintenance of sources on the net. By creating comp.sources.patches we would not be "just" creating another newsgroup, we would be increasing the level of availability of patches for the general net population. FOR ALL OF YOU WHO HAVE BEGUN TO SEND VOTES: Please do not send votes to me just yet. According to the Guidelines, we *must* allow for a minimum of 2 weeks of discussion prior to the start of any vote. I can not take votes until the discussion period is up. If however, you wish to send encouragement or flames don't hesitate. -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