On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Mike Mason wrote:
> > As more people are encouraged to contribute to PCP, perhaps we need to
> > move to the dual "stable" and "development" release track model.
>
> I think a dual release track model is a good idea in the open source
> environment. I would suggest moving to it sooner rather than later. It
> allows us to utilize the collective resources of the "community" during
> testing.
> ...
> >>understanding of how the open source community works. I've been told
> >>"release early and often", gather comments and bug reports, fix the
> >>bugs, release again, and so on, until you become comfortable enough with
> >>the code to make an official release. Granted, we shouldn't knowingly
> >>put out buggy code, at least not without caveats, but I don't think
> >>finding bugs during testing is necessarily a bad thing.
well actually, this is the model I have been following by publishing
the latest pcp src in the dev directory. And it seems to have worked
well in terms of fleshing out bugs. I certainly agree with the "community
effort" style of development wherever it works, and "release early and often"
has worked well for many other projects, but in the case of PCP I'd seriously
like to see more people contributing and testing (other than Mike and Todd for
this release .. not to say nobody else has contributed over the years).
In any case, at least we nailed a few bugs by testing on the unified linux
release that would probably not have been found otherwise; the ksym code worked
fine on RH machines inside SGI.
Mike, do you have a patch for ksyms for the case with no module support
in the kernel and missing /proc/ksyms? (or will I work on that?)
Thanks
-- Mark
|