scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons) (04/03/89)
In article <574@ispi.UUCP> jbayer@ispi.UUCP (Jonathan Bayer) writes: >Use a good mail program such as Elm 2.2 (which is being released to the >sources group today or tomorrow). It hides all of the headers unless >you want to see them. This brings up an issue which other newsgroups may have already dealt with -- distributing patches and source for high-popularity programs. Rich $, bless his little heart, has a boatload of things on schedule to release. Since the last Elm in comp.sources.unix was 1.5, it's pretty reasonable to put 2.2 out thru him. But what about 2.3? 2.4? It becomes silly to post the full release every time. Let's release Elm to c.s.u *at most* yearly, and then only if there is a significant change from the previous postings. By 'significant' I mean the patches getting nearly as large as the source. At the same time, let's make distribution to the present users as fast as possible. This means not only future upgrade releases. I'd like to see a 2.1->2.2 patch released to this group and crossposted to comp.source.d. Oh yeah, one pet peeve. I hope the release of 2.2 is a full "true" one, not 2.1 plus patch. Steve Simmons Just another midwestern boy scs@vax3.iti.org -- or -- ...!sharkey!itivax!scs "Hey...you *can* get here from here!"
syd@dsinc.UUCP (Syd Weinstein) (04/05/89)
In article <911@itivax.iti.org> scs@vax3.iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes: >Rich $, bless his little heart, has a boatload of things on schedule >to release. Since the last Elm in comp.sources.unix was 1.5, it's >pretty reasonable to put 2.2 out thru him. But what about 2.3? 2.4? >It becomes silly to post the full release every time. > >Let's release Elm to c.s.u *at most* yearly, and then only if there >is a significant change from the previous postings. By 'significant' >I mean the patches getting nearly as large as the source. Elm currently runs on a twice yearly release schedule, 2.3 is due out sometime in October. I, as coordinator, as Rich if he wants to release it in his group each time I do a release. Each 'release' is a significant change from the last version, and remember with 26 developers, six months can be a very big change. >At the same time, let's make distribution to the present users as fast >as possible. This means not only future upgrade releases. I'd like to see >a 2.1->2.2 patch released to this group and crossposted to comp.source.d. No you don't want to see a 2.1->2.2 patch, its about 1.8 times the size of the new release. This is mostly due to the change in the orginization of several of the files and a change in the Configuration subsystem. >Oh yeah, one pet peeve. I hope the release of 2.2 is a full "true" >one, not 2.1 plus patch. Since Elm Version 2 has never gone out via comp.sources.unix as a 'patch', why are you asking this question? Facts above, opinion below: I took over Elm with version 2. My policy is to post Elm releases to c.s.u and patches to comp.sources.bugs. My understanding that this is also policy for major programs on the net. Oweing to how fast Elm has been changing, I have set a six month release schedule. That give us enough time to make major changes, while we still are planning major changes. "Why don't I just post patches:" Because I then get many requests for the full source, as they have nothing to patch. Remember net turnover is not small. As for those sites willing to pay the freight, note that Elm has always been available and remains available from my system. See the monthly posting in comp.mail.elm for details. (And don't ask me to reply how to pick it up, especially now when its posting is so close.) -- ===================================================================== Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP Elm Coordinator Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900 {allegra,bpa,vu-vlsi}!dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235