On Wed, 2003-05-07 at 01:02, Tim Rowledge wrote:
> Now I'll agree that some of this is inevitably relaxed for a project
> being done for fun across the world but surely for the crucial central
> support systems of the project it is quite important to spend time
> trying to make sure that code is reasonably correct, reasonably
> understandable, reasonably well described and actually understood by
> persons other than the writer?
> 
Absolutely. The question is just whether the 'correct' order is: 'write,
review, publish', or 'write, publish, review'. It seems that the latter
approach works well for a lot of open source systems (as long as you
make sure that at times, you move to the former system - e.g. when it's
about time to release a new major stable version).
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20030507/3e198424/attachment.pgp