Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!vanvleck!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!ucbvax!hplabs!hpda!hpsemc!bd
From: bd@hpsemc.HP.COM (bob desinger)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: PATCH usage
Message-ID: <1110004@hpsemc.HP.COM>
Date: 5 Jul 88 00:55:43 GMT
References: <393@sce.UUCP>
Organization: HP Technology Access Center, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 50

Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.UUCP) flames:
> Much, much better to send the original, patched...

Ideally, yes.  But (as Larry and others pointed out), the patches
don't exist when the original enters the queue.  The cause of the
problem here is that it takes a long time for the comp.sources.unix
queue to empty; the "original then patch-mania" syndrome is really a
symptom.  Solving the problem requires someone to volunteer to help
Rich Salz out, or else a better queueing method.

BTW, Rich does a great job, especially considering it's volunteer
labor.  I'd rather he continue upholding his high standards than lower
the quality of the postings by pushing them out the door faster.

> Patch should *not* be used to make wholesale changes to programs over the
> net.  It IS a wonderful tool for those "small bugs" -- but when the sum of
> the patches gets to the point where you're consuming 50% of the bandwidth of
> a repost, you should repost.

The net doesn't seem to share your conclusions: patches seldom get
flamed, but reposts almost always do.

> Remember, the patch itself is *useless*
> without the underlying program, and thus by definition has a limited
> audience.  A repost is useful in and of itself, and thus (by definition) has 
> a larger audience.  This is even true for programs such as patch itself,
> which nearly everyone uses -- if you miss a patch, you must now FIND that
> patch to be able to use all the "wonderful" patches which follow.  Ugh.

It's actually quite easy to get patch patches if you read the
prologues to any of them and if you can navigate the mail-routing
network.  Several sites offer patch over Internet for the privileged
few, uucp connections for the masses, and by mail for just about
everyone.  And don't forget comp.sources.wanted.

But this is merely a detail.  I don't agree with your underlying
argument.  It's relatively easy, although time-consuming, to keep up
with patches if you have a reliable newsfeed and if you keep up with
comp.sources.bugs.  The alternatives are to fix the bugs yourself or
run buggy software, neither of which appeal to me.

You want us to reduce net bandwidth by eliminating patches for
recently-posted sources.  But the number of bytes of patches is mouse
eyelashes compared to the non-technical junk that comes streaming from
your newsfeed.  Compare the source postings and patches with the size
of the angry screams over JJ@Portal, talk.politics.*, talk.bizarre, or
the rec.* groups.  If you want to speed up the net, don't waste time
trying to optimize the part that takes 2% of the bandwidth.

-- bd