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.