Received: with LISTAR (v1.0.0; list gopher); Mon, 08 Jan 2001 01:12:26 -0600 (CST) Return-Path: Delivered-To: gopher@complete.org Received: from alexanderwohl.complete.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pi.glockenspiel.complete.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8314B3B807; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 01:12:24 -0600 (CST) Received: by alexanderwohl.complete.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 24E2FF1FD; Mon, 8 Jan 2001 00:05:33 -0500 (EST) To: gopher@complete.org Subject: [gopher] Forking UMN gopher? From: John Goerzen Date: 08 Jan 2001 00:05:32 -0500 Message-ID: <87ofxivdk3.fsf@complete.org> Lines: 11 User-Agent: Gnus/5.090001 (Oort Gnus v0.01) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 50 X-listar-version: Listar v1.0.0 Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org X-original-sender: jgoerzen@complete.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: gopher@complete.org X-list: gopher Hi, At the moment, our gopher has been distributed as patches against UMN gopher. However, these patches are quite large; so I'm wondering if people think that it would be wise to declare it a fork and proceed as if we're upstream. Thoughts? -- John Goerzen www.complete.org Sr. Software Developer, Progeny Linux Systems, Inc. www.progenylinux.com #include