Felix Schwarz wrote:
Any successful fork will need developers which do the hard work
without immediate gains. So I think a successful fork will 'just
happen' by someone who develops for his own and send patches. If there
are enough patches floating around, someone will set up more
infrastructure.
I think this bit here is the key.
As far as I can tell, the dspam-dev list is broken, which *is* a big
problem. It would perhaps help if someone set up an alternative dev list
until the SN managed one is working - not having a forum for -dev talk
is really not helping the project.
Beyond that, as patches are posted it is likely that if SN don't
incorporate them then someone will (for their own use) set up a code
repository which includes the patches and (hopefully) make it available;
from there, if the "unofficial" repository is more up to date then
people will use that instead. To all intents and purposes that would be
the start of a fork. On the other hand, maybe the same person would
instead get access to the SN svn and maintain that instead; if so we
have made progress without a fork. The decider will be whether that
person finds it easiest to set up their own source repository or add to
the official one, which in turn will be decided by how easy they find it
to get write access to svn, how reliable that access is, etc, but could
also just be decided on the basis they prefer git (or whatever) and set
up their own repo anyway.
Without a -dev forum, though, the development cannot proceed in a
reliable way.
--
Mark Rogers // More Solutions Ltd (Peterborough Office) // 0845 45 89 555
Registered in England (0456 0902) at 13 Clarke Rd, Milton Keynes, MK1 1LG
!DSPAM:1011,49082741150921039992547!
