Article View: comp.sources.d
Article #693Re: comp.sources.reviewed and a blast from the past
From: Rahul Dhesi
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:06
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:06
19 lines
1452 bytes
1452 bytes
In <1992Aug14.202913.12815@ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: >Now c.s.u., that's a different matter. When an author submits a >package that goes through several revisions while the moderators sit >on it, so that the posted version is way out of date... My philosophy about this is roughly as follows. If a software package is going to be out-of-date, in the sense of not being useful, within a few months, then it should not be posted at all, just mailed to selected beta-testers. On the other hand: if the revisions about to occur to the software are primarily ones that add new functionality, then there is no reason why the "out-of-date" software should not still be posted. The mere knowledge that something better exists should not be a reason for being dissatisfied with what one has. -- Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@rahul.net> also: dhesi@cirrus.com
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<Bt3K3J.5A7@rahul.net>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!mips!a2i!dhesiReferences:
<22604.Aug103.47.2091@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1992Aug11.225255.22760@athena.mit.edu> <1992Aug12.152145.26416@osf.org> <1992Aug13.144432.1707@coplex.com> <1992Aug14.202913.12815@ms.uky.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!mips!a2i!dhesi From: dhesi@rahul.net (Rahul Dhesi) Subject: Re: comp.sources.reviewed and a blast from the past Message-ID: <Bt3K3J.5A7@rahul.net> Sender: news@rahul.net (Usenet News) Nntp-Posting-Host: bolero Organization: a2i network References: <22604.Aug103.47.2091@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1992Aug11.225255.22760@athena.mit.edu> <1992Aug12.152145.26416@osf.org> <1992Aug13.144432.1707@coplex.com> <1992Aug14.202913.12815@ms.uky.edu> Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 22:06:54 GMT Lines: 19