Re: Knock Knock

> reintroducing instability by bringing in Windows code just isn't my cup of
> tea.

Where needed, Windows-specific code can be added in a way that does not
effect the stability or security of the Unix code.  The largest difference
between the platforms is the GUI and packages such as Qt, wxWidgets and FLTK
should take most care of that for us.

>  I do want to see my patches, SUSE's audit patches, and other's patches
> applied to the current code base and new releases pushed out.

When I was talking to Kent a few days ago, I mentioned that I wanted to go 
over the mail list archives for the past five years.  The idea was to take a 
look at the need for another series of updates similar to the VR series I 
did once-upon-a-time.  It doesn't currently look like there are any archives 
from the past several years, so I'm not hopeful.

Regardless, any patches added at this point should probably be only the most 
important ones.  Too much and we would get bogged down on the v2 code base 
and not have enough time to get going on v3.

>  Now, I'm not a C++ programmer, so my contribution will probably end right
> here ...

Non-programmers generally underestimate their importance in programming 
projects.

I was going to say a bit here before I lost power a few hours ago.  Now, I'm 
going to just skip it and say only all that needs to be worked out until we 
have a consensus.

If there does not appear to be enough interest, you'll probably end up 
getting like it was years ago which means whatever I feel up to doing (my 
mental state still being an very open question).

>  In regards to the RFC process, I am a semi-regular participant in the
> IETF so I may be able to help....but what's needed in that department
> these days?

I just found I actually have my original nroffs for my expired IDs.  They 
still need a shepherd.  And, IIRC, there is a minor change which one of them 
needed .. if I can recall which and what that was.

The best thing would be a WG to replace 959 with something which understands 
the developments of the past few decades.  Second best would be a ID which 
at least tries to point out the errors, misconceptions, inconsistencies and 
incompatibilities in the various RFCs, especially since MLST is (finally) in 
the Editor's Queue and therefore the problem is about to get a lot worse. 
At the time I was last active, I remember I had a lot of problems with MLST 
but was in no state to point them out clearly.  Now, frankly, I'm avoiding 
reading it because it is somehow associated with all my problems.