edc@ALTOS.COM (Eric Christensen) (06/24/88)
Well, hello there fellow Elmers! It looks like I've been given the somewhat dubious honor of picking up the pieces of the Elm project after Dave's untimely departure. :-) I've babbled on in plenty of previous postings about how I think things should be run, and what should be done, and mindless dribble like that. So I'll spare you all a repeat. I do want to quickly outline my game plan to get a reasonably stable version of 2.0 posted to comp.sources.unix as soon as possible. 1) I'll be contacting each of the testers within the next week. 2) I'm already starting the somewhat laborious task of putting Elm 2.0 under RCS control. The 2.0 gamma sources will be checked in exactly as they leaked out of HP. This will be designated as 2.0.0. I'll immediately start cleaning up some portability issues and check these in as 2.0.1. I know the extra branch is a pain, but I don't see any reasonable way of controlling a distributed project as large as Elm without it. 3) I am immediately collecting bug reports (and hopefully some fixes) and wish lists. I'd like to clean up bugs over the next 2 - 3 weeks and then get an official 2.0 out. The wish list items are going to have to wait for the next release. I think it's important to get a clean 2.0 out ASAP. 4) As soon as the 2.0 release is out, let's start talking about what should comprise a 2.1 release. This basically means that I don't want to do anything to 2.0 except clean it up and get it out. 5) I will set up an anonymous uucp for the developers and testers next week. I reccommend that the "D&T" group pick up a copy of the RCS'd sources as a common starting ground. I'll mail the connectivity info to you folks as soon as it's up. In the mean time, while I get organized at this end, let's start throwing bugs and ideas out. This group has been getting sort of quiet as of late. It's time to liven things up. First idea to start the flames: What does everybody think of posting the generic 2.0 gamma sources to this news group? (flame me, please!!!) They're certainly not clean enough to go to comp.sources.unix yet. Rich would laugh me off the net if I even tried, but that way we can at least get a psudo-official, semi-controlled version of 2.0 out. Is this a terrible idea or does it have some merits? Last but not least, please feel free to call me or email me. I can usually be reached by phone at (408)433-3614.
syd@dsinc.UUCP (Syd Weinstein) (06/25/88)
As a loser in this vote, let me congradulate the winner, and say,
I think the net made a good choice. Now on to the flames: (One only
and its not even a flame)
1. I don't think we should post the gamma sources. I think instead
we should make them available for anon uucp, and I volunteer my site
as one place to get them from. My reason, the net is already crowded,
this gamma release will quickly be superceeded.
Good luck, Eric, and I am glad to see elm getting off the ground again.
--
=====================================================================
Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP
Datacomp Systems, Inc. Voice: (215) 947-9900
{allegra,bellcore,bpa,vu-vlsi}!dsinc!syd FAX: (215) 938-0235davek@heurikon.UUCP (Dave Klann) (06/27/88)
In article <509@altnet.ALTOS.COM> edc@ALTOS.COM (Eric Christensen) writes: > >Well, hello there fellow Elmers! It looks like I've been given the somewhat > [ ... ] >First idea to start the flames: > >What does everybody think of posting the generic 2.0 gamma sources to this >news group? (flame me, please!!!) They're certainly not clean enough to go >to comp.sources.unix yet. Rich would laugh me off the net if I even tried, but >that way we can at least get a psudo-official, semi-controlled version of 2.0 >out. Is this a terrible idea or does it have some merits? > Congratulations Eric! No flame from me here... I think posting the gamma sources to this group is a good idea. I *do* think you should wait until the "Official Testers" have had a chance to break it, though. I'm glad to see Elm get moving again! David Klann uwvax!heurikon!davek
jbuck@epimass.EPI.COM (Joe Buck) (06/27/88)
In article <509@altnet.ALTOS.COM> edc@ALTOS.COM (Eric Christensen) writes: >What does everybody think of posting the generic 2.0 gamma sources to this >news group? (flame me, please!!!) They're certainly not clean enough to go >to comp.sources.unix yet. Rich would laugh me off the net if I even tried, but >that way we can at least get a psudo-official, semi-controlled version of 2.0 >out. Is this a terrible idea or does it have some merits? Given that you've already rounded up a team of testers and fixers, PLEASE do not post the existing code. People will just get confused, and maybe think the existing, buggy code is your product and attempt to apply patches that come out later to the gamma code. Let's wait for the real thing. -- - Joe Buck {uunet,ucbvax,pyramid,<smart-site>}!epimass.epi.com!jbuck jbuck@epimass.epi.com Old Arpa mailers: jbuck%epimass.epi.com@uunet.uu.net If you leave your fate in the hands of the gods, don't be surprised if they have a few grins at your expense. - Tom Robbins
becker@ziebmef.uucp (Bruce Becker) (06/28/88)
In article <509@altnet.ALTOS.COM> edc@ALTOS.COM (Eric Christensen) writes: > >What does everybody think of posting the generic 2.0 gamma sources to this >news group? (flame me, please!!!) I think this is a good idea, if it is not too many bytes of Net traffic. Bruce Becker UUCP: ...!unicus!becker!bdb, ...!lsuc!humvax!becker, ...!ncrcan!ziebmef!becker BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET