Dossy Shiobara wrote:

On 2005.02.05, Torben Brosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Perhaps the way to reconcile this is to have two opensource AOLserver
versions. One version meets the current project requirements (including
AOL's internal ones).


Almost exactly four years ago on 3 Feb 2001, Scott Goodwin announced the
first fork of the AOLserver Project, called "OpenNSD":

    http://listserv.aol.com/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0102&L=aolserver&P=7018

It didn't even get as far as doing a plain CVS import of AOLserver
sources.  Go look at the SourceForge project for yourself:

    http://sf.net/projects/opennsd

What's changed in the last four years that suggests another fork attempt
will be any different?


This is not a suggestion to fork* the project as defined here: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?CodeFork

This *is* a suggestion for cooperative development of two versions in
the interests of AOL and the community, perhaps with oversight by a
steering committee if you like.

As documentation develops that answers Andrew Piskorski's (and others')
questions on "core server design docs", there will likely be a natural
reaction to try changing a few things --see if performance can be
increased in some way or applied in a new way. It will take time and
people interested in trying out an experimental version to see what
works and what does not.  Why not create a version that includes these
variations?

  Host in the same SF project or a separate one. The level of
cooperation is as much dependent on AOL's interest in cooperating as
anything else.

....
I still think that an official Steering Committee consisting of AOL and
non-AOL members, expressing what they actually need out of AOLserver,
would be much better than a code fork.  I could be wrong, but we've
tried the fork before, so why not try the Steering Committee.  At least
it'll be something new ...

-- Dossy


--
AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/

To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
with the
body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: 
field of your email blank.

Reply via email to