🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <25224@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> wisner@mica.Berkeley.EDU (Bill Wisner) writes:
:>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 ?
:
:Flame them to a smoldering crisp when they don't.
Rather than causing us to ignore you entirely, how about having the
moderators of the respective groups announce their willingness to
have the patches to us existing source coordinators.  I have seen
a lot of posting about things, but have heard nothing official.

Also, as a side issue for discussion, how long should we wait after
a patch is out before posting (sending it to Rich for posting)
it to c.s.u?  As in the case of Elm, my function, it seems our patches
can be very controversial.  If I post them at the same time, the world
archives a patch, but Rich has double duty to also post the followup
patch instead of both at once.

I am of the opinion, that as the patches to a new release stabilize,
they should be sent as a group to the source newsgroup for posting.

Let comp.xxx.xxx serve as a proving ground (beyond the testing already
done by the authors), as we don't have access to all machine types
and sometimes the patches need tuning (I am speaking of the SIGVEC
problem with Elm, not the signature one).




-- 
=====================================================================
Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP                   Elm Coordinator
Datacomp Systems, Inc.				Voice: (215) 947-9900
syd@DSI.COM or {bpa,vu-vlsi}!dsinc!syd	        FAX:   (215) 938-0235