From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 19:06:27 -0400
From: Richard Wolff rwolff@noao.edu
Subject: errata
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 17bf7d94-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025
Message-ID: <19950817230627.4U6nmcRXf8N3IzonJTdl7GFWy5EJLEGqZWsuj0UxgeM@z>

I'm curious as to how errata are going to be handled over the long
run.  The posting via the web page is currently acceptable, but I'm not
convinced this will scale well.  Moreover, there are various patches
being posted that may apparently cure a problem but, for some reason or
another, not be a solution that's adequately blessed by the plan9
developers: eg, they just don't like the solution, it doesn't fit the
long range notion of some changes they've not yet promulgated, it's
really not correct, etc.  So I'll probably not want to incorporate
everything I see on the net ( :-) ).  On the other hand, I don't want
to keep running a system with known and readily repaired bug(lets).

I'd like to be able to know what's the current "vanilla" plan9...that
is, the system that would be distributed today on a new CD-ROM, were
one to be generated.  So, how are changes to be dealt with?  Is there
going to be a clearinghouse for these?  If the web page is used, should
one just expect to download it every so often and diff it against a
previous version to see what's changed?  Or an ftp'able file that
contains all the diff listings suitable for something ala patch.

Richard