Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!dcl-cs!aber-cs!pcg From: pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi) Newsgroups: gnu.g++ Subject: Re: Protocol Violation Summary: Why not do like Larry Wall, and have patches? Also, use RCS Message-ID: <1613@aber-cs.UUCP> Date: 2 Feb 90 13:50:36 GMT Reply-To: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) Distribution: gnu Organization: Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth (Disclaimer: my statements are purely personal) Lines: 38 In article <9001312044.AA18233@arkesden.sun.com> tiemann@sun.com writes: I made a mistake in pointing people to MIT machines other than prep.ai.mit.edu. Please do not ftp to any machine but this one to get GNU C++ or related software. If you have not yet gotten the latest release, please refrain from doing so until GCC 1.37 is available from prep.ai.mit.edu. GNU C++ 1.37.0 will be available shortly thereafter. Ok, ok. By the way, here is one of my peeves: It would be helpful if you kept your sources (and if RMS did the samer for GNU C) under RCS, as this would also make it easy to do what Larry Wall does, and others do as well, providing upgrade patches between releases; e.g. to have release 1.36 patchlevel 1-,1,2,3,4-,4 and so on. It could also be nice to have some major patch sets to upgrade to a major release, e.g. 1.36 to 1.37 (straight through, that is a consolidation of all patchlevels between the two). Now that RCS is also GNU RCS, it is also politically correct to use it :->, and it makes generating patchlevels a snap (and also could do away with the ChangeLog, or else make maintaining it a snap as well). I don't see that there are that many changes between sub-minor releases, and FTP'ing just patches, and applying just patches, saves bandwidth, disk space, time; encouraging theuse of RCS, e.g. for branching local mods, etc..., would be nice. I have another pet peeve, that the GNU project switch to use cake (which is free sw as well), especially for multi target entities like GCC, G++, etc... GNU make has much the same functionality, but with a syntax that is even more opaque than make's; by contrast, cake has a very clean syntax. -- Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk