Article View: comp.sources.d
Article #1737Re: v01INF1: Status - Status of comp.sources.reviewed
From: Dan Bernstein
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1991 12:29
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1991 12:29
17 lines
1420 bytes
1420 bytes
In article <1991Apr14.204213.12062@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes: > Finally, considering the recent performance in comp.sources.unix, it is my > opinion that c.s.r has the potential to provide something that it does not -- > more reliable, quicker service, and the ability to *guarantee* that service by > making things more robust Okay, I'm willing to believe that comp.sources.reviewed has the *potential* to provide (marginally) faster service than c.s.unix. Since this is its biggest (if not only) possible advantage, why don't you try to imitate a bit of what journals really do: put received, revised, and (if it matters) accepted dates on each article. If you commit yourself now to showing what your real delays are, you'll be able to look back in a few months and show me that I was wrong---if you have anything published in a few months, that is. ---Dan
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<12026:Apr1512:29:4191@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!hsdndev!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstndReferences:
<19199@rpp386.cactus.org> <16831:Apr1306:25:0591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Apr14.204213.12062@athena.mit.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!hsdndev!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: v01INF1: Status - Status of comp.sources.reviewed Message-ID: <12026:Apr1512:29:4191@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Date: 15 Apr 91 12:29:41 GMT References: <19199@rpp386.cactus.org> <16831:Apr1306:25:0591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Apr14.204213.12062@athena.mit.edu> Organization: IR Lines: 17