Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!think!ames!oliveb!intelca!mipos3!nate
From: nate@mipos3.intel.com (Nate Hess)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: Future Elm patches
Keywords: full or self service
Message-ID: <2403@mipos3.intel.com>
Date: 17 Jun 88 16:57:29 GMT
References: <1095@bellboy.UUCP>
Reply-To: nate@mipos3.intel.com (Nate Hess)
Organization: Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 22

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

My 2 cents:

Posting bug reports is a good idea.  Posting fixes is a good idea.  But
there should be Official patches and Official posts of those patches.
The idea of having coordinators is to avoid everyone having their own
personally hacked up version of Elm.  Post fixes, yes; encourage people
to test out posted fixes and post new and improved fixes, yes; however,
*always* ensure that the coordinators are the ones to send out official
patches and new releases.

--woodstock
-- 
	   "How did you get your mind to tilt like your hat?"

...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb|pur-ee|qantel|amd}!intelca!mipos3!nate
<domainish> :   nate@mipos3.intel.com		ATT :    (408) 765-4309