chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (09/21/90)
It is apparent that some people who dislike the C News patch scheme have become abusive to Geoff and Henry. Such abuse is stupid and unwarranted, and I will have no truck with it. Unfortunately, however, the abusers have apparently gotten Henry's goat. To wit: According to henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer): >People who moan that they can't tell which old patches they >need don't seem to ever have *looked* at one of our patches. This statement is, to be blunt, hogwash. I have seen every single patch to C News, and I've applied them all. I remain unconvinced that the C News patch system is viable as a long-term solution. (And I do not consider my complaints to be mere "moaning.") As the list of previous patches gets longer and longer, I grow more and more uncomfortable. How easy it might be to miss a patch. How difficult it might be to clean up afterwards, if I make that mistake. >The balance is perhaps slightly against dating, but hardly strong >enough to justify the vehement outpourings on the subject and the >tendency to blame it for all C News's ills. I don't think anyone can reasonably blame patch dating for C News' other problems -- which, I might add, have been few. Nevertheless, many reasonable people believe that patch dating is itself one of the problems of C News. Usenet maintenance is a job that many people do part-time, and often the time they use is their own. Keeping track of an ever-growing list of patch dates is just one more complication. In my opinion, anything that further complicates a Usenet administrator's job is a Bad Thing. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
srg@quick.com (Spencer Garrett) (09/23/90)
In article <26FA3C1B.5BB@tct.uucp>, chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: > According to henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer): > >People who moan that they can't tell which old patches they > >need don't seem to ever have *looked* at one of our patches. > > This statement is, to be blunt, hogwash. I have seen every single > patch to C News, and I've applied them all. I remain unconvinced that > the C News patch system is viable as a long-term solution. (And I do > not consider my complaints to be mere "moaning.") Now, Chip. What Henry is alluding to is that each Cnews patch begins with a *complete list* of each and every preceeding patch. Larry Wall's patch program will happily check that you've applied *all* of the previous patches, so you really have to work at it to get them out of order. The only problem I can see is that it isn't possible to predict the name of the *next* patch so you can retrieve it from an archive that doesn't supply directory listings. I personally rename the patches to patch.yymmdd form when I get them so they sort properly in my directory listings, but that doesn't require Henry to change anything.
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (09/24/90)
According to srg@quick.com (Spencer Garrett): >What Henry is alluding to is that each Cnews patch begins >with a *complete list* of each and every preceeding patch. >Larry Wall's patch program will happily check that you've >applied *all* of the previous patches ... No, it won't. Only the last "Prereq:" is actually used. Check the code. Look in "pch.c"; search for "Prereq". -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip>
davison@dri.com (Wayne Davison) (09/25/90)
Spencer Garrett (srg@quick.com) wrote: > What Henry is alluding to is that each Cnews patch begins > with a *complete list* of each and every preceeding patch. Larry Wall's > patch program will happily check that you've applied *all* of the > previous patches, so you really have to work at it to get them out > of order. Just to correct one misconception, to prevent anyone from attempting to rely on it: the patch program checks only ONE prerequisite -- the last one it sees before a patch. Having the others listed as prerequisites is mainly for human consumption. This is not to say that a C news patch is easy to get out of order, however, since the immediately prior patch is listed last. -- \ /| / /|\/ /| /(_) Wayne Davison (_)/ |/ /\|/ / |/ \ davison@dri.com (W A Y N e) ...!uunet!drivax!davison
steve@nshore.uucp (Stephen Walick) (09/25/90)
As quoted from <1990Sep23.210012.172@NCoast.ORG> by allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR): +--------------- | As quoted from <26FA3C1B.5BB@tct.uucp> by chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg): | +--------------- | | Unfortunately, however, the abusers have apparently gotten Henry's | | goat. To wit: | | | | According to henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer): | | >People who moan that they can't tell which old patches they | | >need don't seem to ever have *looked* at one of our patches. | +--------------- | | It's not so much not knowing which ones you missed, as knowing *in a timely | manner* which ones you missed.... [ heavily edited ] +--------------- Reading this article after the one to which I had posted a follow-up, I compliment you for your comments on the subject. Postings in this news group have boardered on the bazar, whereas yours is very much to the point, and I publically commend you for that. +--------------- | In this particular case, Steve Walick had already requested the patches | from Henry for his private system, so I got him to mail them to me.... +--------------- Lest there be any confusion on this point, in a message reply from Henry Spencer to myself, he had given me the site from which I could 'uucp' obtain the Cnews patches, viz., osu-cis, and stated that he would rather *not* establish a precedent of personally sending the Cnews patches out because of other committments that he presently has. -- Stephen J. Walick, Asst Sysop of the < XBBS > program at NCoast.ORG {uunet|backnone}!nshore!steve steve@nshore.uucp