Aengus wrote: > Analog has been user modified to meet minor needs,
User-modifications are the first signs of a beginning fork. Why not a 6.01 release instead? Has anyone collected these user-mods into a combined patch? > but the occasional calls for functionality that isn't in Analog (path > tracking, or exit page reporting) aren't things that would necessarily > fall out of the processing that Analog already does. How about reporting on compression ratios, browser language settings and perhaps ssl settings? Maybe introducing autoconf into the build? (I think I did some work on that already). Improved default config with common browsers and robots preconfigured. (personally I also think the config syntax and semantics could do with an "upgrade"). A fork is not necessary, but as Stephen never did invite other maintainers/developers, it seems to be only way forward. /Per Jessen, Zürich PS: another key issue is that analogs popularity will decline the more "mature" (read: stale) analog becomes. New users tend not to opt for software that has not been maintained for over 3 years. +------------------------------------------------------------------------ | TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this list: | http://lists.meer.net/mailman/listinfo/analog-help | | Analog Documentation: http://analog.cx/docs/Readme.html | List archives: http://www.analog.cx/docs/mailing.html#listarchives | Usenet version: news://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.web.analog.general +------------------------------------------------------------------------
