Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!killer!tness7!bellboy!hack
From: hack@bellboy.UUCP (Greg Hackney)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Future Elm patches
Keywords: full or self service
Message-ID: <1095@bellboy.UUCP>
Date: 10 Jun 88 02:50:59 GMT
Organization: Home - Dallas, Texas
Lines: 49


While we are killing some time waiting for the big vote, I'd
like to open up some general discussion on the future releases
of Elm....

In general, the way it has worked in the past, is one person
wrote the software and collected the bugs. After a sufficient
number of bugs were corrected, enhancements added etc., a new
issue of Elm came out, i.e. version 1.7.

This caused a problem for me. I had a number of bugs that
had to be resolved immediately, or my boss and the users would
hang me. So, I tended to hack Elm on my own. I, being a slug, didn't
put it under SCCS control. So, it is always real hairy for me to
go to a new release. And, a lot of other users are in the same
shape, they have a mutant version of Elm.

It seems to me that the group should not procrastinate in getting
these bugs fixed and released immediately. To do this, I like the
idea of how the readnews (rn) program is issued. That is, just
issue a patch file, instead of collecting a gob of fixes and
waiting for a major release. I don't care if it goes to patch level
1000, as long as I can go to an archive site and readily get the main
issue and all the patches. (And, I like the idea of releasing everything
officially through comp.sources.unix via Rich Salz.)

I know that David Taylor had to spend a lot of his time doing development
work on Elm, plus his real work, and I think I understand some of his
philosophy on releases. But, as a group project, I think we can get
the product out the door a lot faster, and I think we MUST in order
for the users to keep current.....

One thing that is debatable, is whether or not the subscribers
ought to post bug reports and fixes, or whether to not post them
but to send them directly to a coordinator. I personally think
we should openly post everything. That way, the expertise of the
entire newsgroup is available as a resource, rather than just that
of the coordination and test committee. We are trying to get Elm
going as a newsgroup project, rather than a single effort.

The end user will have to be responsible for maintaining their own
intermediate hacks for themselves. But if patches are handled in a
timely manner, I don't see much of a problem. I do see it as a problem
to quietly hoard the fixes, and I see it as a problem if the Elm
community does not know everything that is going on. The Elm postings
are saying, "When is such and such going to happen", because
they really are in the dark as to the underworkings. If we all post
openly, then everyone will know at the same time. We will all be informed.
--
Greg