kent@ssbell.UUCP (Kent Landfield) (05/17/89)
In article <bahx024m26XB01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> paf@uts.amdahl.com (Paul A. Fronberg) writes: >In regards to patch frequency, what about News 2.11 or Pearl. There are now 17 >patches for 2.11 and I forget how many came out originally for pearl. Patch, >itself, is up to 8. The problem was not the number of patches. I do not care if a package has 40 patches. What I do not wish to see however is 20 of the patches being distributed in the same week! >There are two major problems that I see with comp.sources/comp.misc and >official patches. > >One is that the patches may not be posted in a commonly read newsgroup. AMEN! >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 topic keeps coming up and nothing ever happens. Well lets try it again. I am hereby initiating a CALL FOR DISCUSSION for the creation of the group comp.sources.patches. The intent of the newsgroup will be to distribute patches to software that has been posted to the sources and news groups. The comp.sources.patches newsgroup will be moderated although it would be an effective newsgroup even if it was not. According to the GUIDELINES FOR USENET GROUP CREATION the discussion is to last a minimum of two weeks and not more than thirty days. The CALL FOR DISCUSSION was begun Tue May 16 20:50:05 CDT 1989. For too long the net has had to accumulate its patches via "catch as catch can" methods. This is not acceptable. There are a large number of people who have spent many hours creating good quality software for the rest of us to use and enjoy. (Thank you, thank you, thank you.) It is not fair to them or to the rest of us to accept the software maintenance distribution procedures (or lack there of) that currently exist on the net. It is time that we simplify the procedures by reducing the number of newsgroups that must be monitored for patches from 20+ to 1. It is time that the patches were archived just as effectively and completely as the original sources. There are many archive sites around the country that have complete sources archives. How many sites can say that they truely have a complete patches archive. I do not want to count the number of times I have asked someone for or had someone ask me for a patch to this or a that only to find out that no one in the area had it. >The second problem is that with certain critical programs (news, patch) it >probably makes sense, at some point, to do a repost with all the patches >applied. With news 2.11, I found that I had to upgrade the patch program >to apply som patches. Also, I had to get a patch that I'd missed due to >system problems and had one arrive slightly mangled. I do not really see the benifits of having these packages reposted "just" because they have the patches appied. I can do that quite effectively and do not need someone else doing it for me. The ability to locate a complete set of necessary patches is the real problem. >Perhaps certain programs should be periodically posted once a quarter or once a >year just to ensure that the community has up to date versions. News and patch >would be prime canidates. NO! I do not want to see these packages come through my site on a regular basis. The benifits of reposting do not out weigh the costs of transmission. What would be of use, is a listing of the current verions of each of the major packages. In this way, I could easily determine if a software package that I am running on ssbell needed to be upgraded. This could be a monthly posting to the just proposed comp.sources.patches newsgroup. comp.sources.patches would ease the work of many sysadmins. They would be able to reduce the number of newsgroups they read just to check for patches. The comp.sources.patches could be archived so that the community would be able to track and retrieve fixes much easier and quicker. Now it is time to hear from the rest of you... And so it begins ... -Kent+ --- Kent Landfield UUCP: kent@ssbell Sterling Software FSG/IMD INTERNET: kent%ssbell.uucp@uunet.uu.net 1404 Ft. Crook Rd. South Phone: (402) 291-8300 Bellevue, NE. 68005-2969 FAX: (402) 291-4362
kent@ssbell.UUCP (Kent Landfield) (05/18/89)
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