rimbold@apollo.COM (Robert Rimbold) (01/05/89)
In article <2838@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes: >In article <24163@sgi.SGI.COM> scotth@harlie.SGI.COM (Scott Henry) writes: >> >>I guess, our comp.{source,binaries}.amiga moderator needs to check out >>animations somewhat more thoroughly than other binaries... :-). Or at least >>post a warning in clear about the poosible requirement of a PAL Amiga for >>these animations. > >Rather. Compliments to Bob for getting out an incredible number of >binaries (heck, I thought our newsfiles were corrupt when I saw over >60 postings in c.b.amiga 8-), but perhaps he's shaved a few too many >corners ? Well, Bob's on vacation, so I'll stick up for him :-). The last time I spoke to him (well, not really the *last* time, but recently) I asked how much testing he was doing on the useability of the submissions to the comp.{source,binaries}.amiga groups. He tests to make sure that all of the parts seem to be there, and that's it. Then he re-posts it. I think that it's too much to expect him to test every submission and make sure that all the source compiles correctly (he would have to have every version of every compiler, right?) and that all the animations execute correctly (some of them require *big* memory, right?) and that all the binaries execute correctly or don't do something nasty (it's awful hard to search for unintentional bugs). He's doing a great job. Let's not *really* overwork him :-) 'Rob Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Bob is on vacation - Was: Re: Three big warnings .. Summary: Expires: References: <24163@sgi.SGI.COM> <2838@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: Reply-To: rimbold@apollo.COM (Robert Rimbold) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Apollo Computer, Chelmsford, MA Keywords: In article <2838@cbnews.ATT.COM> wbt@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes: >In article <24163@sgi.SGI.COM> scotth@harlie.SGI.COM (Scott Henry) writes: >> >>I guess, our comp.{source,binaries}.amiga moderator needs to check out >>animations somewhat more thoroughly than other binaries... :-). Or at least >>post a warning in clear about the poosible requirement of a PAL Amiga for >>these animations. > >Rather. Compliments to Bob for getting out an incredible number of >binaries (heck, I thought our newsfiles were corrupt when I saw over >60 postings in c.b.amiga 8-), but perhaps he's shaved a few too many >corners ? Well, Bob's on vacation, so I'll stick up for him :-). The last time I spoke to him (well, not really the *last* time, but recently) I asked how much testing he was doing on the useability of the submissions to the comp.{source,binaries}.amiga groups. He tests to make sure that all of the parts seem to be there, and that's it. Then he re-posts it. I think that it's too much to expect him to test every submission and make sure that all the source compiles correctly (he would have to have every version of every compiler, right?) and that all the animations execute correctly (some of them require *big* memory, right?) and that all the binaries execute correctly or don't do something nasty (it's awful hard to search for unintentional bugs). He's doing a great job. Let's not *really* overwork him :-) 'Rob
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/06/89)
In article <40ababfa.87ad@apollo.COM>, rimbold@apollo.COM (Robert Rimbold) writes: > I think that it's too much to expect [Bob Page] to test every submission and > make sure that all the source compiles correctly (he would have to have > every version of every compiler, right?) and that all the animations > execute correctly (some of them require *big* memory, right?) and that all > the binaries execute correctly or don't do something nasty (it's awful > hard to search for unintentional bugs). No, I don't think it's too much. When I was running alt.sources.amiga I would at least make sure that I could compile the program, and if I had the facilities I'd test them. I even Manxified a couple of Lattice programs to do this. I screwed up once, with the PCFormat3.5 stuff, because I didn't have any 3.5 disks to check. This is what I expect a moderator to do. If he doesn't have the resources, he should ship a copy off to someone who does and is willing to help out. If he's not going to test anything, you might as well have an unmoderated group. I know I seem awfully demanding of a volunteer, but I've been there. It's not that much harder to do a pass over each package, if you're looking at it anyway. By the way, Bob. Did you repackage 'except' after I sent it to you? The one I received for alt.sources.amiga was in three parts. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' Hackercorp. ...texbell!sugar!peter, or peter@sugar.uu.net 'U`
tadguy@cs.odu.edu (Tad Guy) (01/08/89)
In article <3225@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar (Peter da Silva) writes: >If he's not going to test anything, you might as well have an unmoderated >group. Not true -- the moderator's main duty is to filter out the non-source and non-binary postings. This alone is sufficient reason to have a moderator. Having decent archiving headers on the messages and filtering out redundant postings is also a big win... ...tad -- Tad Guy <tadguy@cs.odu.edu> Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA
kim@uts.amdahl.com (Kim DeVaughn) (01/10/89)
In article <3225@sugar.uu.net>, peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <40ababfa.87ad@apollo.COM>, rimbold@apollo.COM (Robert Rimbold) writes: > > I think that it's too much to expect [Bob Page] to test every submission and > > > [ ... ] > > No, I don't think it's too much. When I was running alt.sources.amiga I would > at least make sure that I could compile the program, and if I had the > facilities I'd test them. I even Manxified a couple of Lattice programs > to do this. I screwed up once, with the PCFormat3.5 stuff, because I didn't > have any 3.5 disks to check. I'll go with Robert on this one ... I think the moderator's "job" is to: 1 - post submissions to the net in a *timely* fashion 2 - insure all the parts are contained therein 3 - screen out duplicate submissions 4 - reject "inappropriate" material (what is "inappropriate" is pretty subjective, aside from submissions that might have been pirated) 5 - feed the submissions to the net at a rate that does not cause undo problems for most sites on the net (like overflowing the news spool area, etc.) That's it! I do agree that it'd be real nice if Bob could test out all submissions, but *NOT* at the expense of item 1!!! It's just too time consuming, not to mention the fact that Bob *does* have other things to do with his time. You *do* remember the kind of turnaround that we got from Purdue, don't you [and "alt" never did take-off due to the limited distribution that all the alt.groups get ... as I recall, only about 20 postings were ever made there ... Bob's made that many in a week!] I personally feel that Bob has been doing an EXCELLENT job with all the points I mentioned above (though I too would put large animations, iff's etc. in the "inappropriate" category), and would encourage him not to change his procedures, except perhaps on one point ... And that is ... *IF* large animations, etc. are going to continue to be posted, then yes, *they* should be "tested" (just see if it comes up ... nothing extensive). Personally though, I think there are better uses of the available bandwidth ... /kim -- UUCP: kim@amdahl.amdahl.com or: {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,uunet,oliveb,ames}!amdahl!kim DDD: 408-746-8462 USPS: Amdahl Corp. M/S 249, 1250 E. Arques Av, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 BIX: kdevaughn GEnie: K.DEVAUGHN CIS: 76535,25