🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Apr11.023044.2643@rick.doc.ca> csr@calvin.doc.ca (Andrew Patrick) writes:
> We will attempt to handle sources that run on all the major computers
> and operating systems.

What about software that only runs on certain major computers and
operating systems? What's a ``major computer'' anyway?

If this group is only going to accept software that works under BSD,
System V, MS-DOS, the Mac OS, VMS, and VM/CMS (just to name a few), it
won't get many submissions.

> Please use an informative "Subject" line when mailing postings.
> Something like "nlist - New file list utility, Part01/04"

Uh-oh. I can see the first few packages coming through now...

uname - User-controlled name service
sh - Clone of ``mesg n''
time - cute X clock with Japanese numbers. Plays Tetris, too!
sh - System handler
ksh - bouncy ball made out of lots of strands of rubber
pwd - Protocol for Walking Dogs

> For very large submissions, authors may wish to contact the moderator
> (at "csr@calvin.doc.ca") to arrange an FTP file transfer.

That should be happening anyway.

> Each submission should include the following types of files.  

``Types of files''? You mean not necessarily under those names?

  [ README, Makefile, INSTALL, man page ]
> For large submissions, it is often useful to make subdirectories like
> "man", "doc", "source", etc.

What a leap in technology. One would think that such a progressive group
would at least try to advance the minimum level of software it accepts.

> but many users prefer that they be able to make
>     and test software in the current directory before they install it.

Is there anyone who doesn't prefer this? I really like packages that
have a separate installation script; make does not work well for files
in different directories, and I hate having privileged operations hidden
inside a Makefile.

> The preferred form for patches is "diff"
> format, using the "-c" option to produce context diff files.

The preferred form should be unidiff.

> - if submission is accepted:
> 	- moderator discusses evaluations with author
> 	- moderator posts sources and evaluations

This is supposed to be modelled on traditional journal reviews, but
reviewers don't get anonymity, and reviews are published. What a joke.

> We are discouraging making repairs to submissions during the review
> process.

Ahahahahaha. That's funny.

> Once the reviews are completed, you will receive a summary from the
> moderator, and, if necessary, will have a chance to make repairs to
> your package.

So will the package be re-reviewed after that?

> If you submit a package to CSR, you will be invited to become a
> reviewer.

Ooh, that tempts me soooo much.

---Dan