From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 1995 21:02:22 -0400
From: forsyth@plan9.cs.york.ac.uk forsyth@plan9.cs.york.ac.uk
Subject: fixes
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 17d9c064-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025
Message-ID: <19950818010222.sFj2pJqP5J_T9oQqV7GMj1XvBdKVhQAEIC1zve6NR1I@z>

>>if people are going to post source, please post diffs
>>as they highlight the fix rather than hiding it.

yes, and it is probably ill-advised to put too much of THE SOURCE
out in public, since it is subject to licence.   diffs sometimes
beg the question of a reference source (if you haven't got the
CDROM on line), and they do not always avoid excessive detail, esp. without -b,
but seem a reasonable compromise.  diff -e is quite
effective at hiding detail, but troublesome and downright confusing
if the reference source turns out to be wrong!

in Old Unix days there was some light-hearted discussion about whether
it would be possible to reconstruct THAT SOURCE by accumulating
all the diffs that had been published; enough people took
the possibility seriously enough to try to ensure that only
people with a licence could subscribe to the newsletters with the diffs.

during the discussion about comp.os.plan9, it struck me
that one of the advantages of a moderated newsgroup
was that a moderator might spot the more obvious violations.

even so, i don't mean to dent Vadim Antonov's enthusiasm, since it is
natural to want to share joys; or, in Bill Hogan's case, misery.