JOHNSON@NORTHEASTERN.EDU (I am only an egg.) (01/05/90)
Hi all! Happy New Year!
I FTP'ed 5.9c from the source Goeff mentioned. It built well and
seems to running fine. The few bugs some have found haven't bitten me
yet.
I noticed that a problem I had in 5.8x has gone away. I used to
get temp files left behind in my SYS$SYSTEM: directory. There was a
delete(fp) in the code but it never worked for some reason.
I noticed the NNTP_ACCESS now uses real node names too.
I noticed that the name of the incoming nntp batch files changed.
This causes more reponses to come before original messages. It's not a
problem for me but it may be for some. Naming the file something like
NNTP_yymmddhhmmss_pid.BATCH or some such might help solve it.
It seems to be faster by a bit. The only problem I have with speed
is getting the loading to keep up with the incoming news :-).
As to version control: I realize that this will go over like a
lead balloon with some but I have this thing against patching. I much
prefer getting whole complete stuff. I still remember the days when we
hex patched IBM images :-(. (I still have to do it with DEC images.
Computing for the 50's ... YUCK! :-() This put me off patching for ever
and ever. That's why I waited until there was an FTP'able whole version
someplace. It made my day when Goeff announced it. Of course I
understand that not everybody has FTP access but NEWS isn't really that
big. It or updated pieces could probably be e-mailed to a few key sites
for further distribution if necessary. The load would be distributed
then. (And I don't think I could justify paying for it either. People
want NEWS but no one is willing to shell out the bucks for it. *sigh*)
Chris Johnson
Northeasern Universitysloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (01/06/90)
In article <ANU-NEWS%90010510023586@NDSUVM1.BITNET>, "I am only an egg." <JOHNSON@NORTHEASTERN.EDU> writes: > As to version control: I realize that this will go over like a > lead balloon with some but I have this thing against patching. I much > prefer getting whole complete stuff. I still remember the days when we > hex patched IBM images :-(. (I still have to do it with DEC images. > Computing for the 50's ... YUCK! :-() This put me off patching for ever > and ever. That's why I waited until there was an FTP'able whole version > someplace. It made my day when Goeff announced it. Of course I > understand that not everybody has FTP access but NEWS isn't really that > big. It or updated pieces could probably be e-mailed to a few key sites > for further distribution if necessary. The load would be distributed > then. (And I don't think I could justify paying for it either. People > want NEWS but no one is willing to shell out the bucks for it. *sigh*) Assuming we distribute full source for each new version, how do you propose to distribute fixes, for example the fix recently posted by Lenny Glassman for the OPEN/MAIL problem? (Thanks, Lenny.) Should we issue a new source version every time a 2 line patch is added? If we do, then everyone will have a different version of the source, ie some people will have V5.9, some V5.9A, etc. If someone fixes a problem, and postes a patch, it will be more difficult to distribute to the world, because there isn't any STANDARD source against which to apply it. I agree that it would be a good to simplify the process of updating to a new version of NEWS. My recent posting of the SLP patchs as command files was an attempt to simplify the process somewhat. Would you be satisfied if you loaded some BASE source, and then typed a couple of commands which would automatically update the BASE source to the current patch level? -- USmail: Bob Sloane, University of Kansas Computer Center, Lawrence, KS, 66045 E-mail: sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu, sloane@ukanvax.bitnet, AT&T: (913)864-0444
gih900@CSC.DNET (Geoff Huston) (01/20/90)
> I FTP'ed 5.9c from the source Goeff mentioned. It built well and >seems to running fine. The few bugs some have found haven't bitten me >yet. > > I noticed that a problem I had in 5.8x has gone away. I used to >get temp files left behind in my SYS$SYSTEM: directory. There was a >delete(fp) in the code but it never worked for some reason. this was reported some time ago and fixed. > I noticed that the name of the incoming nntp batch files changed. >This causes more reponses to come before original messages. It's not a >problem for me but it may be for some. Naming the file something like >NNTP_yymmddhhmmss_pid.BATCH or some such might help solve it. the next version will have the necessary changes to implement this - it makes sense. cheers, Geoff