Re: qmail.org DEAD?
"Amitai Schleier" <[email protected]> 2 Jul 2019 12:13:33 -0400
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.qmail.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 1 Jul 2019, at 18:44, Erwin Hoffmann wrote: > However, just maintaining the content of some outdated software > repositories with a lot of broken links is certainly not enough. > > We need fresh start! (and a maintainer). I can think of only two ways we might arrive at an active and agreed maintainer: 1. DJB announces progress on qmail 2 2. DJB names a successor Maybe there are other ways. I suspect a more fruitful question is, how could we arrive at an active and agreed group of developers collaborating to ship sensible, trustworthy, seamless, and therefore sufficiently authoritative updates to qmail? I don't know the answer to this question either, but I have some educated guesses: - We choose our own little group (like the folks who chose each other to produce netqmail) - Our starting point is the most recent netqmail - Our revision control history is public (such as on GitHub), and our commits are emailed to a public list (probably a new one for the purpose) - Our design discussions are public (such as on this list) - Before changing or adding code, we ensure it's covered by automated tests - Before fixing a bug, we write a regression test - On every push, automated tests are run in public and their results are publicly available - We ship the automated tests with the code, so users can run the tests on their own systems - Over time, automated tests cover more of the system and get run on more and more platforms Folks who have been part of open source projects, does this sound like it could work? What would you change, add, remove, or otherwise suggest? Folks who wish there were sufficiently authoritative updates to qmail: does this sound like a development process you might be able to trust and that might produce updates you'd want to track? > BTW: The outage of qmail.org (Russel Nelson's site) and DJB seems to > be orchestrated. DJB refers already to mirrors here: > http://cr.yp.to/qmail.html I don't think this is the case. The links to mirrored copies of the qmail tarball have been there for many years, and the link to www.qmail.org is still present.