kent@ssbell.UUCP (Kent Landfield) (06/03/89)
In article <21559@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com> heiby@mcdchg.chi.il.us (Ron Heiby) writes: >I like this idea best. I currently run an archive site for both >comp.sources.unix and comp.sources.x. Official patches that appear in >those two groups have in incredibly high probability of ending up in >the right spot so that someone picking things up can find them. It also >has the advantage of being *no* additional work for yours truly. The >whole thing is automated and works well (Thanks, Rich $alz!) > >It was relatively recently that I discovered that official patches to >major pieces of software in my archives were turning up in the .bugs >group. This means that I have to either archive the entire group >(which is impractical because non-patches show up there and the patches >have no fancy header lines to allow them to be put where they belong) >or I have to find time to deal with them EVERY FRIGGING WEEK (which is >impossible, because sometimes I have a real job to do, like the entire >month of May). For these, those I see, I try to put into the archives >where they belong (as far as I can tell) whenever I get a chance. It's >a pain in the behind. I *KNOW* that I am missing patches. I initiated call for discusson on the creation of comp.sources.patches out of frustration! Thanks to the level heads on the net who were kind enough to contribute to the discussion both via posting and email. They were able to show me that it is not a new group that is needed but education that "Offical" patches to posted software should not appear in comp.sources.bugs unless they have been sent to the moderator of the sources groups as well. There is still a problem with software that has never been posted to sources groups. For those packages it is necessary to get them posted so that everyone can benifit from the hard work of the authors. A lot of people either posted or sent me mail indicating their support for the new group, but what was being said told me something different then the way in which they said it. I heard a lot of the same frustration that I was feeling. What they seemed to be saying is that they don't like the problem any more than I did. They didn't really want a new group so much as they did a solution to the problem. The *real* problem is as I have said above, one of education. Just creating a comp.sources.patches will not change the actions of those who continue to post "Official" patches to comp.sources.bugs... The discussion period has been productive. Rich Salz has agreed to include a new "Patch-To:" line in the auxiliary headers to better facilitate access to the patches for a specific package. The index for c.s.u is being expanded to include a complete cross-reference to the patches so that we will soon be able to tell the latest version of the software posted through c.s.u. (This was not a result of the discussion, Rich was doing this anyway... :-) ) It would be nice if the other moderators followed suit so that we could finally benifit by knowing what the current versions are within their newsgroups. Now, how do we go about educating people that they should post their "Official" patches to the newsgroup that the software was initially posted to ? Do we need a set of guidelines for posting sources to the net in general ? I am moving this discussion to comp.sources.d since it no longer belongs in news.groups. -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
wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) (06/03/89)
>Now, how do we go about educating people that they should post >their "Official" patches to the newsgroup that the software was >initially posted to ? Flame them to a smoldering crisp when they don't.
syd@dsinc.DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein) (06/04/89)
In article <25224@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes:
:>Now, how do we go about educating people that they should post
:>their "Official" patches to the newsgroup that the software was
:>initially posted to ?
:
:Flame them to a smoldering crisp when they don't.
Rather than causing us to ignore you entirely, how about having the
moderators of the respective groups announce their willingness to
have the patches to us existing source coordinators. I have seen
a lot of posting about things, but have heard nothing official.
Also, as a side issue for discussion, how long should we wait after
a patch is out before posting (sending it to Rich for posting)
it to c.s.u? As in the case of Elm, my function, it seems our patches
can be very controversial. If I post them at the same time, the world
archives a patch, but Rich has double duty to also post the followup
patch instead of both at once.
I am of the opinion, that as the patches to a new release stabilize,
they should be sent as a group to the source newsgroup for posting.
Let comp.xxx.xxx serve as a proving ground (beyond the testing already
done by the authors), as we don't have access to all machine types
and sometimes the patches need tuning (I am speaking of the SIGVEC
problem with Elm, not the signature one).
--
=====================================================================
Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator
Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900
syd@DSI.COM or {bpa,vu-vlsi}!dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235schaefer@ogccse.ogc.edu (Barton E. Schaefer) (06/06/89)
A quick introduction, since I haven't been active in this discussion so far; you probably know who I am if you've been reading comp.mail.mush. I've been helping Dan Heller with the Mail User's Shell and have been coordinating the posting of patches to the most recent versions. Those patches have all gone to comp.sources.bugs, cross-posted to comp.mail.mush after that group was created. None of them have appeared in comp.sources.unix. In article <21559@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com> heiby@mcdchg.chi.il.us (Ron Heiby) writes: } It was relatively recently that I discovered that official patches to } major pieces of software in my archives were turning up in the .bugs } group. This means that I have to either archive the entire group } or I have to find time to deal with them EVERY FRIGGING WEEK (which is } impossible, because sometimes I have a real job to do, like the entire } month of May). For these, those I see, I try to put into the archives } where they belong (as far as I can tell) whenever I get a chance. It's } a pain in the behind. I *KNOW* that I am missing patches. In article <494@ssbell.UUCP> kent@ssbell.UUCP (Kent Landfield) responds: } [That he initiated the discussion and that the consensus reached was:] } [....] "Offical" patches to posted software should not appear } in comp.sources.bugs unless they have been sent to the moderator of the } sources groups as well. This implies that the moderators of the source groups will give their cooperation in posting any and all patches to the software they accept. Dan and I offered to send the Mush patches to Rich $alz for posting to comp.sources.unix, where Mush version 6.4 appeared some months ago. (There have been a total of nine so far, a six-part kit to upgrade from 6.4 to 6.5, and three bug-fix patches to 6.5.) I didn't communicate directly with r$ myself, but I was told that Rich had declined to take the patches because there had already been too many recent postings dealing with E-mail programs (ELM followed close on the heels of Mush). I do not mean that as a flame of r$, he is the moderator and has every right to make such a decision, but it left Dan and I with few alternatives other than posting to comp.sources.bugs. So I ask: what are the guidelines here? Where do patches go when the moderator of the sources group rejects them? Or is it now a requirement that when a moderator accepts sources, he must also accept any patches? Kent continues: } Now, how do we go about educating people that they should post } their "Official" patches to the newsgroup that the software was } initially posted to ? Do we need a set of guidelines for posting } sources to the net in general ? And in article <25224@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) tactfully suggests: } } Flame them to a smoldering crisp when they don't. Gee, thanks, Bill. And what shall we do when the patches don't get posted at all? For those interested, a fourth patch to Mush 6.5 will be ready sometime late this week, and I intend to post it to comp.sources.bugs. If somebody wants to talk Rich into posting it in comp.sources.unix as well, I'll be pleased as punch. Rich, assuming you're reading this, I still have copies of the upgrade kit and the first three patches, if you want those, too .... -- Bart Schaefer "Our situation has not improved." -- Dr. Henry Jones, Sr. CSNET / Internet schaefer@cse.ogc.edu UUCP ...{sequent,tektronix,verdix}!ogccse!schaefer
billr@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM (Bill Randle) (06/08/89)
In article <141@dsinc.DSI.COM> syd@dsinc.UUCP (Syd Weinstein) writes: >In article <25224@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes: >:Flame them to a smoldering crisp when they don't. >Rather than causing us to ignore you entirely, how about having the >moderators of the respective groups announce their willingness to >have the patches to us existing source coordinators. I have seen >a lot of posting about things, but have heard nothing official. > OK, consider this an official statement. I will gladly accept patches from authors or maintainers of sources that have been or will be posted to comp.sources.games. I will also give patches higher priority in posting than new stuff. I don't care how long after the original source posting you wait before sending me a patch or patches. I believe that timeliness is often most important if a "major" bug prevents lots of people from compiling or running a program. As an aside, I also plan to start using the "Patch-To:" auxillary header on new patch files submitted for posting. -Bill Randle Moderator, comp.sources.games Tektronix, Inc. games@saab.CNA.TEK.COM
allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (06/13/89)
As quoted from <4075@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM> by billr@tekred.CNA.TEK.COM (Bill Randle): +--------------- | In article <141@dsinc.DSI.COM> syd@dsinc.UUCP (Syd Weinstein) writes: | >Rather than causing us to ignore you entirely, how about having the | >moderators of the respective groups announce their willingness to | >have the patches to us existing source coordinators. I have seen | >a lot of posting about things, but have heard nothing official. | | OK, consider this an official statement. I will gladly accept patches from +--------------- Just in case someone out there missed my presence in this thread or its implications: I have *always* accepted patches, and will continue to do so. I am also planning to implement Patch-To:, along with a few other features. ++Brandon, your friendly neighborhood comp.sources.misc moderator -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@ncoast.org uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu Send comp.sources.misc submissions to comp-sources-misc@<backbone> NCoast Public Access UN*X - (216) 781-6201, 300/1200/2400 baud, login: makeuser