[MaraDNS list] How to get MaraDNS and Deadwood to talk to each other?

[Remco Rijnders]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 12:10:45AM -0500, Sam wrote in 
<CAJxgfkQta0nacNW79AV3U-NwSRDKzb24QnvovxSjSwWuJ-Pcwg at mail.gmail.com>:
>
>> Perhaps you should look at how the Linux kernel management works these days.
>>  Torvalds has largely stated that he doesn't really write any new code for
>> the kernel, but spends most of his time commenting on submitted code and
>> reviewing patches and handling the releases of the primary branch.
>
>I really don't have time to even look at patches and bless them :(
>
>> While you probably don't even have time enough for that, creating some sort
>> of "lead maintainer" positions, one for MaraDNS and another for Deadwood,
>> might be worth looking into.  They would handle the existing codebases,
>> process new patches and prepare new versions for release.  You could
>> maintain final review before new releases (or even on new patches), so as to
>> safeguard MaraDNS/Deadwood's history of being small and secure.
>
>For me, it would be better if the maintainer took all responsibility.
>All the bugs are their responsibility; just let me update MaraDNS 2,
>Deadwood 3, and supply secuirty patches to MaraDNS 1.

Sam,

Would it be agreeable to you if we put maradns and deadwood in a git tree, 
and at the same time branch them into a development / new major version 
tree for new developments to take place in while the community / 
maintainer(s) to be get up to speed? That way you can have / keep your 
responsibility for your code while still keeping an eye (should you so 
desire) on the evolution of the code in the development area.  
Furthermore, it would make it easier to cherrypick patches from one tree 
and apply them to the other.

I understand your time constraints but I have the feeling I might not be 
the only one willing to be a (small) part of such a thing. Even if we do 
not have anywhere near the skills you have, we can see where this will 
take us? In the worst case, it fails horribly or goes out silently.

Furthermore, I also do understand that any of us could create such a thing 
easily, but it would be nice if we have you in support of it.

Thanks,

Remmy
are just a few of us here
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
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=C89f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----