On 4/2/07, P. Martinez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello dear List, > > its for me some time ago that i have used mon. The system > is still running so far. Now, i got a request for another > monitoring concept. > > My question: Is mon still actively developed? I took a look > at the list and it seems that you all are still using mon. > I got confused about the versions: On http://www.ker > nel.org/software/mon/ is 0.99.2 mentioned and on the other > site Jim Trocki offer in a mail 1.2 at http://arctic.org/~ > trockij/mon-1.2.0/ . > > I would like dive in and use mon again. > > Thanks in advance for responses about the status of mon. >
Well, I was hoping that Jim was going to respond to this, but since he hasn't I will. The current code in CVS, which has been referred to by both myself and Jim as either a 1.2.0 release candidate, or as a releasable 1.2.0, is much better in many respects then the last full release, 0.99.2, which is quite old and has some serious bugs. (both "make perl run out of stack and segfault" bugs, and "features that just don't work at all, ever" bugs) Why hasn't this been actually released as mon 1.2.0 you ask? Thats a good question... I don't have access to either the files section at sourceforge or the www.kernel.org/software/mon web pages, so the only person who can modify those pages and call 1.2.0 an official release is Jim. The only way I can call something an official release is to fork the code and set up a new hosting site for the software. The idea has crossed my mind on occasion, but I've been avoiding that. I did at least get CVS commit access a while back, but without a "public release" of the newer code its not getting heavily used. (I think there is also one minor bug/feature I want to fix, but I can't recall what it was off hand.) Don't get me wrong, I'm not upset with Jim over this. He's only one man, and this is just one of the downfalls of the monolithic developer model. Giving me CVS access was the first step to getting the project moving again, but I think it is time to take the next step. I think there are several people on the list who would be interested in contributing code & documentation and collaborating on an actual release of the current version. What can we do to make this better? We could migrate the website into a wiki and grant trusted list members access to the wiki (I'd be happy to host it, I've already setup dokuwiki for another OSS project I work with on a server paid for by my consulting company), and we could migrate the code into some more distributed version control system (maybe mercurial?) which will make it easier for individuals to submit change sets and get them incorporated. But we also need to figure out a way to streamline the process of signing off on "official" versions. -David _______________________________________________ mon mailing list mon@linux.kernel.org http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/mon
