Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!killer!tness7!bellboy!hack
From: hack@bellboy.UUCP (Greg Hackney)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: Future Elm patches
Keywords: full or self service
Message-ID: <1096@bellboy.UUCP>
Date: 11 Jun 88 23:01:11 GMT
References: <1095@bellboy.UUCP> <3159@s.cc.purdue.edu>
Reply-To: hack@bellboy.UUCP (Greg Hackney)
Organization: home
Lines: 29

In article <3159@s.cc.purdue.edu> rsk@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
 
>I strongly recommend using the facilities of a source code control
>system such as SCCS or RCS;

Yes, it's a very basic requirement!

>>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.
 
>This would create several problems:
>
>1. It will make it difficult to correctly identify patches by
>number (and thus to identify the release number of the version
>of Elm so generated).  For instance, if you and I release
>patches simultaneously, is mine #7 or is yours?

No no, I agree with you. There were some folks saying that if we
found a bug, to not post that finding, but to send it to a coordinator.
I meant, yes, let's send it to a coordinator, but also post our
findings to keep others abreast of what's going on. The coordinator
should definitely be in full control of the official patch releases.
And only the coordinator and testers should have access to the
preliminary official patch. But as a normal user, I would
want to know of the bug report and basic fix as soon as possible,
so I could apply a temporary fix on my own if I so desired. Reasonable?

--
Greg