From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.clark.net ([168.143.0.10]) by hawkwind.utcs.utoronto.ca with SMTP id <24632>; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 12:40:18 -0500 Received: from clark.net (culliton@explorer.clark.net [168.143.0.7]) by mail.clark.net (8.8.5/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA06236; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 12:39:35 -0500 (EST) From: Tom Culliton Received: (from culliton@localhost) by clark.net (8.8.5/8.7.1) id MAA17601; Thu, 6 Mar 1997 12:40:01 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 1997 12:40:01 -0500 Message-Id: <199703061740.MAA17601@clark.net> To: alan@oldp.nmsu.edu, rc@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu Subject: Re: RC => POSIX > The behaviour of rc is, for all intents and purposes, fixed. We are Agreed... More or less... We never did get an official version with read in it as Byron discussed once. > talking about rc-1.5 not because we want new features or want bugs > fixed, Even if we don't add new features I'd sure like to see bugs fixed! And yes, there are bugs, software without bugs is even rarer than being alive and not having dirty laundry. I'd like to see a 1.5 with the known good fixes incorporated before we start talking about any major rewrites. Personally I plan to do my part by running rc through every static and dynamic checker available to me, and posting fixes for anything that turns up. > but because we want rc-1.4 to work on new iron. Presumably, > those people with old iron can continue to run rc-1.4. This was exactly what I was arguing against! Tom