🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Mar21.033325.26029@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM> kent@sparky.IMD.Sterling.COM (-Kent+) writes:
> In article <1991Mar16.202344.17575@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) writes:
> >As quoted from <17900010@vantage.UUCP> by ray@vantage.UUCP (Ray Liere):
> >| It seems to me that ... those unhappy with the turnaround time (the time
> >| between submission and posting) in comp.sources.unix could submit to
> >| comp.sources.misc.
>[....]
> >What *is* clear is that there have been people who chose alt.sources over
> >comp.sources.misc because it is unmoderated (and told me when they did it).
> 
> That is a pity. The distribution and archiving of alt.sources is weak to say
> the least.  As an alpha/beta testing distribution channel alt.sources is great.
> As a final distribution and archiving mechanism it is extremely limited.  Yes 
>[....]
> >I suspect that moderating sources groups demands too much time for most of the
> >net.denizens willing to do the job --- comp.sources.unix, comp.sources.misc,
> >and even comp.sources.games tend to have rather excessive lead times.
> 
> Sorry but that is just *not* the case in c.s.misc...  Maybe someone else 
> does but I don't call 21 hours excessive.  :-)

Well, as has been stated, there are different kinds of moderation.

Perhaps if people used alt.sources more effectively as an alpha/beta
testing ground, final versions for posting to c.s.u wouldn't require
as much work from the moderator for final testing!

Yes, that means longer lead times, but I'd rather have c.s.u be a slow
source of useful, tested, portable, code; rather than have it be
filled with many versions of the same code, as well as numerous
patches, all that could have been eliminated with beta testing.
-- 
							Greg A. Woods
woods@{eci386,gate,robohack,ontmoh,tmsoft}.UUCP		ECI and UniForum Canada
+1-416-443-1734 [h]  +1-416-595-5425 [w]  VE3TCP	Toronto, Ontario CANADA
Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible-ORWELL