Talk:Open-source software development

message: Hi!
I started working on this entry (my first post was by an unregistered user by accident). I did it because I noticed that there's a broken link for "Open source sotware development" in Brooks' Law. A lot (but not all) of what can be placed in this entry is covered in the main Open source entry. However, I think the ideas should be expanded upon.
I thought about what to put here, but still don't have a clear structure for everything. Thus, it is possible that it will resemble a brain-dump at first. I promise I will organize it later, assuming no one beats me to it. :-).
--Shlomif 19:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept behind this article is just as flawed and poorly planned as those of the BSD and Linux article which was recently deleted.  You are stretching for far too much and will only end up with a wretched and unreadable article if you don't end up with on completely filled with invalid information and gross generalizations.  You should probably try to trim down your article to either one type of development or make this an index of sorts to articles which detail the particular development styles.  Linux kernel, GNU tools, Apache projects, BSD derivatives, random other projects - they all do things differently.  Janizary 05:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agenda for this entry 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_software_development_method contains the same topic, and that article is tagged to be listed in the appropriate category.
:I think these two articles should be merged, but it's a ton of work to do so. --Jackson 15:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It must have been an accident that both were created.  Surely, with two nearly identical titles, these two articles must overlap a great deal. The articles are among the oldest marked for merger consideration (almost a year); yet almost no discussion of this proposal has taken place. It is a lot of work, but it can be done in pieces.  Are there any objections to doing so?  Hult041956 21:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it if you think you can do it! Radagast83 04:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had both article sitting on my desk in hard-copy, getting psyched up to scale this mountain. This morning I see you got there first. ;-)  Congratulations.   There was a ton of stuff in both articles. To what extent did you actually manage to merge it all?  Hult041956 16:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  duplicate subject 

message: This edit made the article internally inconsistent, using the terms "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" interchangeably. This is confusing; we should use one or the other. It also undid the change to the name "Debian GNU/Linux", which is the proper name of the OS in question. it should be reverted. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent revert 

message: :Open source software development → Open-source software development — like Open-source software — Neustradamus (✉) 18:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion moved to Talk:List of free and open source software packages#Requested move. Jafeluv (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: This article seems to be about "open source" in a sense in which it is not just an alternative term for free software, that is, it is about open-source development of software, rather than development of open-source software. The article avoids any mention of free software, and still it is in the category "free software". Something needs to be done about that, so that it does not encourage the confusion between FLOSS and public handling of bug reports and feature requests ("source code is publicly available" is also unclear if you consider the article to be about OSS). --AVRS (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "open source" 

message: I have done a major cleanup of this article (diff), let me know of any conerns. Thank you!  --AmritasyaPutraT 05:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent cleanup 

message: This article mixes two styles of referencing:
* the <ref> and  method
* the  and  method
This should be fixed, perhaps by migrating to the <ref> system?  Perhaps a consensus will develop on which to adopt?  Please leave your thoughts.  Best wishes.  RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two styles of referencing