🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <340@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel B. Del More  Nashua) writes:
>In article <bahx024m26XB01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> paf@uts.amdahl.com (Paul A. Fronberg) writes:
>>
>>One is that the patches may not be posted in a commonly read newsgroup.
>
>Quite true, and a royal pain as well!  
>
>>I claim that all offical patches should be issued through the moderated source
>>group that the program was originally posted. This would allow easier
>>administration of fixes and put them in a known group.
>
>This is an idea that has alot of merit.  While it would result  in  some
>inconvienence,  in  that  the  patch  would  have  to  pass  through the
>moderator resulting in some delay reaching the end user of the  program,
>it  would  introduce  some  degree  of  consistency  into the posting of
>patches.

It would also introduce the ability to archive the patches instead of
having to hunt for them or post requests to the net only to have your
spool directory swamped by the many good people that respond by sending
the requested patch.

>And it would also be nice if their was a companion "patch" newsgroup for
>each   of   the   newsgroups   to   which   sources   are   posted,  eg.
>"comp.sources.unix.p" or something similar.

This is probably overkill in that it would (if moderated groups) require
eight different moderators as the sources groups currently stand. There is
not enough patches traffic to really justify a patch newsgroup for each
sources group. 

>In summary, the advantages to posting patches to a  moderated  newsgroup
>are  consistency  of  format,  and absence of "chatter" in the newsgroup
>which in turn would allow archive sites to process these postings  in  a
>more efficient manner.

It would also allow the community at large the ability to retrieve patches
from the published archive sites. Currently its a matter of asking a
neighbor or posting a request to the net.

>The disadvantages are increased time for the posting to reach the end
>user. 

This is true of any source related/moderated group. I would *not* like
to see comp.sources.unix become unmoderated just to get the sources to
me faster. The moderators play an important role of increasing the quality
and consistency of postings.

>I'd be interested in hearing what others have to say about the  subject,
>is   the   idea  worth  further  investigation  and  possible  call  for
>discussion.

A Call for Discussion has already been initiated by myself for the creation
of the newsgroup comp.sources.patches. Judging by my mailbox, I am not
the only one who feels that the current "all over the place" posting of
patches is unacceptable. 

				-Kent+
----
Kent Landfield               UUCP:     kent@ssbell
Sterling Software FSG/IMD    INTERNET: kent%ssbell@uunet.uu.net
1404 Ft. Crook Rd. South     Phone:    (402) 291-8300 
Bellevue, NE. 68005-2969     FAX:      (402) 291-4362