🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <340@ubbs-nh.MV.COM> noel@ubbs-nh.MV.COM (Noel B. Del More  Nashua) writes:
>I would have suggested that "official" patches be  posted  to  the  same
>newsgroup  as  to  which  the  original was posted but that might not be
>possible, wise or too much of an additional burden on the moderators  of
>these groups.

The current setup used by comp.sources.{unix,misc,games,x} is to include
a header in the message body of the format PRODUCT/PART#. Most existing
automated source archivers seek out this information and use it to build
the pathnames in the archive tree. The moderators are responsible to see
that the PRODUCT part of the header is unique across all posted software
packages within their group. The PART# part of this header consists of
(usually) the string "Part##" with ## replaced by a numerically ascending
sequence of numbers.

If the Part## string were replaced by Patch## for postings of patches,
the existing archiving software would automatically tuck the patches
away for safe keeping right along side of the corresponding source.
No muss, no fuss.

This also solves a potential conflict between package names if we were
to use a single common patch group. What if Rich Salz and Brandon Allbery
post seperate packages to their respective groups, each called "foo?"
We would need to include group information in patch postings in addition
to the other info. By posting patches via the original group, possible
name space collision is avoided.

One problem with this idea is the delay in getting things "out the
door." I don't perceive this to be as big of a problem as some people
think, as I'm sure the moderators would give priority to patches over
original source (primarily based on the assumption that patches are
smaller than source postings :-)

-- 
Lyndon Nerenberg / Computing Services / Athabasca University
{alberta,decwrl,ncc}!atha!lyndon || lyndon@cs.AthabascaU.CA