RWS@ZERMATT.LCS.MIT.EDU (Robert Scheifler) (07/11/88)
Date: 10 Jul 88 19:51:16 GMT
From: elsie!ado@cvl.umd.edu (Arthur David Olson)
And to avoid friction with an MIT X-person, I plan to stop sending bug reports
to xbugs@expo.lcs.mit.edu; I suggest this course of action to other readers
as a way of reducing stress.
Dunno what "MIT X-person" he thinks he rubbed against, but I repeat, I
hope you all continue to send bug reports to xbugs@expo. If you want to
send them to other mailing lists or newgroups as well, that's fine with
me, but if you expect to continue to use releases from MIT, you'll
minimize new-release headaches by getting the bugs fixed in our sources.ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) (07/12/88)
In article <19880711115445.2.RWS@KILLINGTON.LCS.MIT.EDU>, RWS@ZERMATT.LCS.MIT.EDU (Robert Scheifler) writes: > I hope you all continue to send bug reports to xbugs@expo. If you want to > send them to other mailing lists or newgroups as well, that's fine with > me, but if you expect to continue to use releases from MIT, you'll > minimize new-release headaches by getting the bugs fixed in our sources. And I'll repeat: if you want to avoid such impoliteness as being called "snide" and "confused", don't send stuff to xbugs@expo.lcs.mit.edu. Let MIT read about the fixes in the other mailing lists and newsgroups, just as they expect the rest of us to do. -- ado@ncifcrf.gov ADO is a trademark of Ampex.
moraes@godzilla.ele.toronto.EDU (Mark Moraes) (07/13/88)
In article <8113@elsie.UUCP> elsie!ado@CVL.UMD.EDU (Arthur David Olson) writes: >In article <19880711115445.2.RWS@KILLINGTON.LCS.MIT.EDU>, RWS@ZERMATT.LCS.MIT.EDU (Robert Scheifler) writes: > >> I hope you all continue to send bug reports to xbugs@expo. If you want to >> send them to other mailing lists or newgroups as well, that's fine with >> me, but if you expect to continue to use releases from MIT, you'll >> minimize new-release headaches by getting the bugs fixed in our sources. . >Let MIT read about the fixes in the other mailing lists and newsgroups, >just as they expect the rest of us to do. The X11R2 distribution was incredibly easy to setup and gave us considerably fewer headaches than R1. (We have one source tree shadowed on two architectures - works like a charm) It also had plenty of bugs fixed. Some of us remember the steady stream of bug fixes that were provided by MIT for R1. Outside ftp land, we're grateful for the archive-server that was setup for distribution of the bug fixes. Bug fixes are distributed for X11 - not frequent maybe, but consider the work involved in testing all fixes for the different architectures, displays etc. that X supports. There's nothing to stop you from not sending bug-reports/fixes to xbugs. That's a good way to guarantee that the fixes never make their way into the official distribution - patching new releases for old bugs is real fun, right? Personally, I'd like to have future distributions fixed. The present mechanism for bugfixes (crucial fixes on the list, batches to the server, patches from authors of contributed software) seems reasonable. Do we really want a flood of unofficial fixes, apparent fixes, new bugs, and portability problems? Bear in mind the fact that we've benefited from others that have sent in bug reports and fixes, which have been incorporated into the distributions. It might be worth extending the same courtesy to future users of X. Sending bugfixes to the xpert list/comp.windows.x might be a good thing - but then I read it as a newsgroup. People who get it in their mailboxes might mind. I think that the people at MIT/The X Consortium are being helpful. (Nah, they're probably being nice only to me....)