[gopher] Re: Forking UMN gopher?
David Allen <s2mdalle@titan.vcu.edu> writes:
> I'm not clear on who else is working on it. Who is the 'official'
> maintainer of it? I know that you're the debian package maintainer,
> but if you're also the maintainer, we're not forking. :)
The official maintainer is University of Minnesota. Except for a
small security fix, they have been inactive on it since 1995.
> Where is the other work available? Is it reconcilable? What code has
> been written for UMN gopherd that isn't in our tree, and why isn't it
> there?
There is no other work going on for UMN gopher(d) that is not in our
tree. AFAIK, the two of us are the only people working on it.
> Sorry for the barrage of questions...I just didn't know that forking
> was going to be an issue.
Well, the question is this -- if we are going to be putting serious
work into it, and it looks like we are, then it makes sense to start
versioning it, making releases, etc. like a real project. IE, 2.3.2,
2.4.0, whatever. When a project is active, distributing a diff that
gets revved periodically is rather confusing to the users (well,
anyone that doesn't run Debian.) So, essentially it's a fork but the
other prong doesn't exist :-)
--
John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> www.complete.org
Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc. www.progenylinux.com
#include <std_disclaimer.h> <jgoerzen@progenylinux.com>
Reply to: