At 10:23 PM 13-03-00 +1100, you wrote:

>From: "Alan McDonald" <alan@...>
>
>I was assuming that the proprietors would continue to provide sufficient,
>quality input toward the code in their function as a mediator and the
>"stamper or authority" that users would always be highly motivated to return
>to the "source" for their production binaries. I assume also, that I would
>have to be travelling very fast by myself, code-wise, to keep up with the
>mainstream of the code.
>Alan

Alan, I think you've lost the plot.

This discussion isn't about "when the source goes open" - when the
infrastructure for controlling the code is all in place, the gurus in the
coding community have taken charge of their sections of the code, etc. etc.
- but in this interim period - when the unscrupulous could potentially get
hold of the code, get it to a compilable state and release binaries that
could be in production in an out-of-control way. I'm talking of someone
appending some code that, e.g. messes up a dependency.

Phil's idea seems to make sense. Actually, as I understand it, some
portions of the code need a currently-unpublished compiler, anyway, so it
might not be an issue at all.

Waaaay back, this steamed up from a caveat against making the preview
anything but 'private', i.e. released to people known to be interested in
being in the guru group.

Helen
__________________________________________________
"Words lead to deeds: they prepare the soul, make it ready,
and move it to tenderness." - St Teresa