C News patch of 7-Sep-1990

[Henry Spencer]

I wrote:
>If there are other solid reasons for going one way or the other -- mind
>you, I'm talking about numbering vs. dating, not about patch frequency
>or people who won't apply patches or people who want a magic way to tell
>whether they are up to date -- I'd be interested to hear them.

Several people have pointed out one issue, which isn't *precisely* an
argument one way or the other but is an annoying problem:  the suggested
naming convention in our patches is badly chosen and consequently the
patches are hard to sort into chronological order.

I may have overlooked this partly because I almost never type "ls -l"
any more -- I have a shell function that does "ls -ltr", which I find
a far more useful order than alphabetical.  This does depend on some
circumstances that don't necessarily apply to users on other machines
picking up patches, however.
-- 
TCP/IP: handling tomorrow's loads today| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
OSI: handling yesterday's loads someday|  henry at zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry