Re: [9fans] Publish and be damned.

[Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>]

On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 02:22:02PM +0200, Boyd Roberts wrote:
> why not just manage a web page with links to the originals
> as a first cut.  then if it works out move on to a more
> complex solution?

In reply to Boyd...

I suppose I'm trying to take ownership away from the originators,
because I see it as slowing down development.  Let me try to explain
by example:

I have an unfinished game (mastermind or bulls and cows) for Plan
9 I threw together to get a feeling for the graphics.  I am reluctant
to post it as it stands because of the personal involvement, possible
criticism, any number of embarrassments due to the unfinished nature
of the program.  This way, it will never be anything more than a
curiosity.  It is my prerogative to keep it hidden, but it would
probably be a lot better if I dumped it on a CVS archive (I'll come
back to your question in a moment) and worked on it in moments of
interest, let anyone else also contribute to it.

>     plan to throw one away, you will anyway ...
>
If I remember correctly Brooks also emphasised the need to store
program documentation with the program text, and CVS adds historical
information, which I certainly value (and so do Bell Labs inmates,
it would seem :-)

> the web is well established, but CVS?
>
I appreciate that CVS is only a partial solution.  It is, to my
mind, as good as we've been able to make readily available; better
solutions may exist, but they're not in the realm of free software.
I'm also aware of forsyth's comment that the DUMP filesystem in
Plan 9 is adequate, but somehow I can't be convinced that it provides
all the benefits of CVS.  And, quite honestly, I could use more
features than CVS offers, although I'd be hard put to explain
exactly what features I miss.

The nice bit about CVS is that it is a useful tool on which to base
improvements, which makes a pleasant change from the more common
approach on this list of criticising (we all do it, it's not my
intention to offend anyone) without offering a better alternative,
at least not an immediately practical one.

In reply to private mail from Russ:

I still need to spend some effort to make the CVS server accessible.
What I feel a project like this needs is the encouragement of Bell
Labs, at the very minimum an understanding that its purpose is not
contrary to Bell Labs' intentions, and that there is a place where
mutually exclusive objectives can be negotiated to some compromise.
I suppose we could draw up a mission statement or memorandum of
understanding that all participants could accept and work to.

To Nemo:

I've been reading your commentary, and would like to feed back to you
some corrections, as well as obtain the most recent copy, in one form
or another.  Would you consider making it CVS-accessible in source
form?

To everyone :-)

There may be intellectual property issues and personal interest issues
I have overlooked as I perceive intellectual property as purely a
reflection of my own barely controlled need to _own_ things.  Please
be encouraged to make suggestions.  I am tempted to call this CVS idea
the "plan 9 software forge", and perhaps we should just be using
sourcefourge anyway (I didn't think of that earlier).  If people think
we should head in that direction, I have no objection.

++L