Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 02:11:29 -0500
From: David Allen <s2mdalle@titan.vcu.edu>
To: gopher@complete.org
Subject: [gopher] Re: Forking UMN gopher?
Message-ID: <20010108021129.A25512@mothra>
References: <87ofxivdk3.fsf@complete.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Mutt/1.0.1i
In-Reply-To: <87ofxivdk3.fsf@complete.org>;
 from jgoerzen@complete.org on Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:05:32AM -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Errors-to: gopher-bounce@complete.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: gopher@complete.org


On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:05:32AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> 
> 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?

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.  :)

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? 

Sorry for the barrage of questions...I just didn't know that forking
was going to be an issue.
-- 
David Allen
http://opop.nols.com/
----------------------------------------
People are like onions -- you cut them up, and they make you cry.