First off, everybody needs to quit whining. Seriously, if Tom hadn't
taken up the reins, there would be ZERO DEVELOPMENT on this project right
now. Unless you were willing to send a truck of cash to Inter7, they
would often not even respond to emails asking whether development would
continue, let alone addressing actual, verified bugs in the code.
Second, if there's confusion about what a "devel" release is versus a
stable release, then I suggest you go back to kindergarten, because this
is NOT A NEW METHOD for developing an open source project. If you're
confused, perhaps it's because you're not very smart, in which case maybe
you ought not be a systems administrator. Some of us are running devel
code in our production environments because we needed features that Inter7
didn't seem inclined to add, such as seekable patch, etc. Under the
pressure of meeting customer demands, it has been absolutely necessary to
install devel releases. HOWEVER, that DOESN'T MEAN installing EVERY devel
release -- just installing one that seems stable while providing the
Third, there are certainly improvements that can be made to the PROCESS.
But, btw, in case everybody was sleeping when he announced it, Tom has
created a vpopmail-devel mailing list where all of you can contribute to
the devel discussions, where, oh btw, the question of CVS access has been
presented previous and will, I believe, be forthcoming.
Should this be a separate fork? No. Why? Because, imho, regardless of
what Ken Jones might claim, vpopmail has been shelved by Inter7, and is
thus a dead product without this open source SF project. Inter7 has
failed, probably for economic reasons, to continue supporting the product
in the open source community, which has been a very common occurrence over
the past few years. That anybody took over the development and moved it
forward is quite amazing, and I think we all ought to heartily thank Tom
for doing so.
Now, onto the specific concerns raised, I think the following practice
should be adopted:
1) CVS should be enabled.
2) If KJ wants to be an admin, then he needs to justify his request more
than "it was my baby originally", and then he should be added.
3) Instead of "releasing" devel releases, I think we should switch to a
"nightly build" approach so that there is "stable-current" and then
"latest-devel", and not a string of devel releases. Tom, I would probably
list 3 packages total: 5.2.x-stable, the last 5.3.x release from Inter7,
and then 5.3.x-latest-devel.
4) Inter7 needs to get over themselves and gradually join back into the
development, IF AND ONLY IF they plan to play nicely with others. If they
don't, then maybe they should go get bent since there's been a ton of
positive movement on this project in their absence. NO FORKING.
Disclaimer: If you disagree with these comments, that's your prerogative,
but I personally don't want to hear sniping comments back about it,
because frankly, I don't value the opinion of most of you. The list
membership over the past year has become overpopulated with whiny idiots
who have no appreciation for where the product has been, how it almost
died, and how it has now seen tremendous progress in the absence of Ken
> On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 10:07 AM, Ken Jones wrote:
>> Just so everyone knows. Tom Collins is attempting
>> to fork the vpopmail project. He refuses to let me
>> share ownership of the vpopmail and qmailadmin
>> projects on source forge. When I asked him to
>> add me as an owner on the project he said he
>> refuses now and at any time in the future to
>> allow me to share ownership.
> I have forked ownership since I felt that Inter7 was doing a poor job
> of maintaining vpopmail and qmailadmin. I readily acknowledge that Ken
> created vpopmail and qmailadmin. They're GPL projects, so I'm free to
> fork them if I like. Since moving the projects to SourceForge, we've
> kept up with submitted patches and bug reports. I feel that making the
> move was beneficial to the projects themselves and the people that use
> I'm certainly not doing this to be malicious or to hurt Ken and Inter7.
> I've told Ken that he's more than welcome to contribute to the project
> on SourceForge, or to maintain his own version of vpopmail and
> qmailadmin. I also stated that until I stopped actively maintaining
> vpopmail and qmailadmin, I saw no need to add him as a project
> administrator. Michael Bowe has been actively involved with vpopmail
> development, and I had no problem adding him as an admin.
> Ken Jones hasn't contributed to vpopmail and qmailadmin development
> since March. We've had 12 qmailadmin releases and 7 vpopmail releases
> since then. Managing the projects on SourceForge keeps everything out
> in the open, and allows anyone to contribute.
> Ken hasn't stated why he wants to be an owner of the project. I'm not
> sure I understand what he loses out on by being a developer on the
> project and not an admin.
> Tom Collins
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> QmailAdmin: http://qmailadmin.sf.net/ Vpopmail: http://vpopmail.sf.net/
> Info on the Sniffter hand-held Network Tester: http://sniffter.com/
Benjamin Tomhave, CISSP