laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (07/09/84)
I don't want to archive it all! Also, consider that if the poster already knows that the bubble sort is inefficient then you aren't telling him anything new and if he doesn't he may be beyond help anyway. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
bytebug@pertec.UUCP (roger long) (07/13/84)
> I don't want to archive it all! Also, consider that if the poster already > knows that the bubble sort is inefficient then you aren't telling him > anything new and if he doesn't he may be beyond help anyway. > > Laura Creighton > utzoo!laura I agree! I archive net.sources as well, and really don't want to waste the storage on people's requests for fixes to the VP-11 driver (belongs in net.wanted or net.unix-wizards), or peoples complaints about the inefficient implementation of a bubble sort (net.flame), or the AAAI 84 Conference Schedule (net.ai), or ... you get the picture. As a reminder, the purpose of net.sources is: net.sources For the posting of software packages. Perhaps we should create: net.sources.d Subgroup for discussions on the content of submissions to net.sources. I know all of the pros and cons of creating a new newsgroup. "Post to an existing newsgroup and we'll see if the volume of traffic warrents your own newsgroup." Fine. I've just looked at the past 30 days worth of net.sources and can see enough volume of stuff that is not a posting of a software package that I think we can justify net.sources.d quite quickly. I think we should also expand the definition of net.sources to be "For the posting of software packages and software bug fixes." Comments? roger long pertec computer corp {ucbvax!unisoft | scgvaxd | trwrb | felix}!pertec!bytebug