[gopher] Re: Forking UMN gopher?

[John Goerzen <jgoerzen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

David Allen <s2mdalle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx>                       www.complete.org
Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc.    www.progenylinux.com
#include <std_disclaimer.h>                     <jgoerzen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>