Received: with LISTAR (v1.0.0; list gopher); Mon, 08 Jan 2001 12:45:47 -0600 (CST) Return-Path: Delivered-To: gopher@complete.org Received: from gtei1.bellatlantic.net (gtei1.bellatlantic.net [199.45.40.145]) by pi.glockenspiel.complete.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B8243B805 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 12:45:47 -0600 (CST) Received: from mothra (adsl-141-152-12-101.bellatlantic.net [141.152.12.101]) by gtei1.bellatlantic.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA10895 for ; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:42:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from x by mothra with local (Exim 3.20 #1 (Debian)) id 14FhEk-0007Si-00 for ; Mon, 08 Jan 2001 13:41:42 -0500 Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 13:41:42 -0500 From: David Allen To: gopher@complete.org Subject: [gopher] Re: Forking UMN gopher? Message-ID: <20010108134142.C28525@mothra> References: <87ofxivdk3.fsf@complete.org> <20010108021129.A25512@mothra> <87puhyj7wp.fsf@complete.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <87puhyj7wp.fsf@complete.org>; from jgoerzen@complete.org on Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:00:38PM -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 56 X-listar-version: Listar v1.0.0 Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org X-original-sender: s2mdalle@titan.vcu.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-to: gopher@complete.org X-list: gopher On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:00:38PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > David Allen 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. Wow. Do they have any information out there about actually being the maintainer, or are they only the maintainer since nobody can think of anybody else? I.e. is it orphanware? Sounds to me like a fork would be appropriate, but if there's anybody left at UMN that wants to put anything into it, we should try to get them involved with this. > > 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 :-) Ah. Well, a distinctly unforkish fork is fine with me. I'd just like to make sure it is clear to anybody who sees it that it's not being done out of difference of opinion or different design ideas, and that the original author as well as anybody else is welcome to join in. Just out of curiosity, how big are the diffs now? We may not have diverged all that much, since I can imagine hundreds of lines of diff that are only due to me cleaning code up, rather than actually changing anything. -- David Allen http://opop.nols.com/ ---------------------------------------- "The first lesson in activism is that the person that offers to get the dynamite is always the FBI agent" -- Judi Bari