cudcv@warwick.ac.uk (Rob McMahon) (09/04/89)
In article <26756@winchester.mips.COM> pmm@mips.COM (Paul M. Moriarty) writes: >In article <193@titania.warwick.ac.uk> cudcv@warwick.ac.uk (Rob McMahon) writes: >>In article <27062@amdcad.AMD.COM> indra@hobbes.AMD.COM (Indra Singhal) writes: >>>I am not sure how everyone else feels, but posting unofficial patches on >>>the net is a sure way of causing confusion. >> >>I strongly disagree with this.... > >I'd have to agree with Indra on this one. It is potentially confusing to post >unofficial patches, particularly when those patches do not update >/hdrs/patchlevel.h. Unofficial patches should definitely *not* update patchlevel.h, that really would cause confusion. What if 2 people upgrade from PL10 to PL10.1? Would fractional patchlevels work anyway ? Certainly you can't upgrade to PL11, because that would indicate the official patch. >I'd say it would be better to post a not to say that you have an unofficial >patch that does whatever and request that interested parties send mail to >you requesting the patch. I don't see the difference, except the load on the person who's suggesting the patch, and his (possibly trans-Atlantic) mail costs. There's no obligation to apply an unofficial patch, the official patches are obvious, and the sender only has to send it once to the newsgroup instead of a note to the newsgroup, a copy of the patches to the maintainers, and n copies to whoever wants one. What's the problem ? Rob (who worries about his mail bill) -- UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!warwick!cudcv PHONE: +44 203 523037 JANET: cudcv@uk.ac.warwick ARPA: cudcv@warwick.ac.uk Rob McMahon, Computing Services, Warwick University, Coventry CV4 7AL, England