[23] in Zephyr_Bugs
Re: [pete@ATHENA.MIT.EDU: Zephyr problems]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (raeburn@ATHENA.MIT.EDU)
Sat May 19 03:16:18 1990
From: raeburn@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
To: "Jonathan I. Kamens" <jik@PIT-MANAGER.MIT.EDU>
Cc: bug-zephyr@ATHENA.MIT.EDU, release@ATHENA.MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: [0022] Your message of Thu, 17 May 90 09:43:26 -0400.
Date: Sat, 19 May 90 03:15:56 EDT
>> Date: Thu, 17 May 90 09:43:26 -0400
>> From: "Jonathan I. Kamens" <jik@PIT-MANAGER.MIT.EDU>
>>
>> What's the reason for this design decision, anyway? Was there any
>> discussion of it anywhere but in the zephyr team?
There was no discussion anywhere, actually. The original one put
together did "verbatim" by default always, which botched up the filsrv
messages, and as you've pointed out, my last-minute fix wasn't correct
either.
>> This seems to be a questionable decision. It seems to me that, given
>> a choice over which way to default, we should have defaulted to the
>> same thing we defaulted to in the previous release.
Probably true. I would suggest punting the relevant changes to both
zwgc.desc and zwrite. (But keep the $fromhost stuff in zwgc.desc, and
the number_of_fields fix to zwrite.) Shall I put together new versions?
>>Date: Thu, 17 May 90 09:47:40 -0400
>>From: "Jonathan I. Kamens" <jik@pit-manager.MIT.EDU>
>>
>> By the way, I hate to be caustic, but I've had just about enough
>>bogus zephyr changes in this release. If I don't see some action
>>on the screw-ups with the zwgc sources, and some explanations and
>>possibly improved documentation about this "pretty" thing, I'm going
>>to recommend falling back on the 6.4R sources for this release.
The fact that you are getting a set of new files should indicate that
action is being taken; it is simply later than you (or I) would prefer,
for various reasons.
If the "pretty" stuff is punted for this release, I think the rest of
the changes are reasonably documented at this point, though I'd have to
double-check.
Frankly, though, I am tempted to recommend the same thing, for related
reasons.
