🚀 go-pugleaf

A quick introduction, since I haven't been active in this discussion so far;
you probably know who I am if you've been reading comp.mail.mush.  I've been
helping Dan Heller with the Mail User's Shell and have been coordinating the
posting of patches to the most recent versions.  Those patches have all gone
to comp.sources.bugs, cross-posted to comp.mail.mush after that group was
created.  None of them have appeared in comp.sources.unix.

In article <21559@mcdchg.chg.mcd.mot.com> heiby@mcdchg.chi.il.us (Ron Heiby)
writes:
} It was relatively recently that I discovered that official patches to
} major pieces of software in my archives were turning up in the .bugs
} group.  This means that I have to either archive the entire group
} or I have to find time to deal with them EVERY FRIGGING WEEK (which is
} impossible, because sometimes I have a real job to do, like the entire
} month of May).  For these, those I see, I try to put into the archives
} where they belong (as far as I can tell) whenever I get a chance.  It's
} a pain in the behind.  I *KNOW* that I am missing patches.

In article <494@ssbell.UUCP> kent@ssbell.UUCP (Kent Landfield) responds:
} [That he initiated the discussion and that the consensus reached was:]
} [....] "Offical" patches to posted software should not appear
} in comp.sources.bugs unless they have been sent to the moderator of the
} sources groups as well.

This implies that the moderators of the source groups will give their
cooperation in posting any and all patches to the software they accept.
Dan and I offered to send the Mush patches to Rich $alz for posting to
comp.sources.unix, where Mush version 6.4 appeared some months ago.
(There have been a total of nine so far, a six-part kit to upgrade from
6.4 to 6.5, and three bug-fix patches to 6.5.) I didn't communicate
directly with r$ myself, but I was told that Rich had declined to take
the patches because there had already been too many recent postings
dealing with E-mail programs (ELM followed close on the heels of Mush).  
I do not mean that as a flame of r$, he is the moderator and has every
right to make such a decision, but it left Dan and I with few alternatives
other than posting to comp.sources.bugs.

So I ask:  what are the guidelines here?  Where do patches go when the
moderator of the sources group rejects them?  Or is it now a requirement
that when a moderator accepts sources, he must also accept any patches?

Kent continues:
} Now, how do we go about educating people that they should post
} their "Official" patches to the newsgroup that the software was 
} initially posted to ? Do we need a set of guidelines for posting
} sources to the net in general ?

And in article <25224@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner)
tactfully suggests:
} 
} Flame them to a smoldering crisp when they don't.

Gee, thanks, Bill.  And what shall we do when the patches don't get posted
at all?  For those interested, a fourth patch to Mush 6.5 will be ready
sometime late this week, and I intend to post it to comp.sources.bugs.
If somebody wants to talk Rich into posting it in comp.sources.unix as
well, I'll be pleased as punch.  Rich, assuming you're reading this, I
still have copies of the upgrade kit and the first three patches, if you
want those, too ....
-- 
Bart Schaefer                   "Our situation has not improved."
						-- Dr. Henry Jones, Sr.
CSNET / Internet                schaefer@cse.ogc.edu
UUCP                            ...{sequent,tektronix,verdix}!ogccse!schaefer