Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!altnet!edc
From: edc@ALTOS.COM (Eric Christensen)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: Future Elm patches
Keywords: full or self service
Message-ID: <419@altnet.ALTOS.COM>
Date: 10 Jun 88 11:24:41 GMT
References: <1095@bellboy.UUCP>
Reply-To: edc@altnet.UUCP (Eric Christensen)
Organization: Altos Computer Systems, San Jose, CA.
Lines: 62

In article <1095@bellboy.UUCP> hack@bellboy.UUCP (Greg Hackney) writes:
>
>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.

Ah! Excellent idea! I was going to suggest the same thing. The patch system
works real well for a distributed project like this. And to make it even
easier, if the master (meaning the coordinators) sources are under RCS
it's real, real easy to maintain with rcsdiff(1) and rcsmerge(1).

>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 feel that the coordinator should set up a master archive with anonymous
uucp. That way we can keep everybody that's actually working on Elm (as
opposed to just using it) up to date. There's nothing more frustrating than
creating a patch, and discovering that in the mean time another patch came
out which affects yours, but you don't have it!

If, for some reason, the duly elected coordinator cannot set up annonymous
uucp, I'd be more than happy to set it up off altnet (assuming that I'm not
the duly elected coordinator).

>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.

Certainly everything that is "officially" released should be posted to
comp.sources.unix! I don't particuarly like getting a whole load of patches
for a program (like rn) only to find that one of them in the middle doesn't
work right though. As an alternative (read: "happy medium"), let's post patches
to comp.mail.elm so that they can be tested by the test group, and retrieved
by anyone else who is really interested. Then, once the test group gives the
blessing, the coordinator should make an official patch release to     
comp.sources.unix. In some cases, we could even merge multiple patches into
one posting to simplify things for the poor guys on the other end (and Rich
Salz too.).

Additionally, let's set up a mailing list of some sort for the testers and 
developers. That way we can ensure that everybody knows what's going on 
all the time. The "pre-test" patches could be mailed to the testers and
developers also.


-- 
+-------------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Eric D. Christensen     | Email: edc@altnet.altos.com  (uunet!altnet!edc)   |
| Altos Computer Systems  +---------------------------------------------------+
| 399 West Trimble Road   | Definitions:    Bug - An Undocumented Feature     |
| San Jose, Ca. 95131     |                 Feature - A Documented Bug        |
+-------------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| These views aren't Altos' - They're mine, all mine, and you can't have them |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+