[Ids-devel] newish static IDS version

[Randy M. <ra...@ac...>]

Hello,

I've been hacking on my increasingly out-of-date variation of IDS.  I'll
call it v0.7-rcm Its a close a cousin of 0.7 something.  I don't run CGI's
on a public web server or Apache at all, so IDS runs on one machine and
builds a static version of the web page.  I'm sure that can be useful to
someone else. It probably has a number of quirks or bugs, but it works ok
for me.

Since 1.0 is a total rewrite, there seems to be little point in updating
portions to 0.81 and sending patches.  Or is there?  Maybe I'm not the only
one who won't be using the 1.0 line...

I've rearranged portions of the code (for various reasons) that make a
simple diff tricky.  I usually have three versions: ie, I might download
0.8, and make a 0.8-hack version that gets rearranged, diffed, poked, etc
so my 0.7-rcm version can be updated. It doesn't gain everything that a
mainstream version has to offer, but most things.  From there I'd dump
0.8-hack and do it again.  This time 0.8-p1 would be updated with some
fixes from 0.7-rcm and fixes to make it work right on its own.  At
somepoint I'd send a patch or two to John or the list, and continue on.
Eventually I'd like to think that 0.8-p3 (or so) and 0.7-rcm would be
really close and update 0.7-rcm with some more fixes.  Atleast I'd
understand some of the code changes in the main version.  

Needless to say thats a lot of work.  But I don't see how else to do it.
The code is changed for various reasons -- the rearranged code for example
is usually because I moved a redundant or useful subroutine from one of the
.cgi files to the shared module.  And the HTML templates that are standard
were simply not enough for what I was doing once upon a moon.

I sent a recent tarball to John;  I don't mind if its a dead line.  So the
crux is this:  Should I evolve it up to 0.8? I also don't mind if 0.8 isn't
a dead line; I don't have much time to contribute useful things to 0.8 or
others.

All the best
Randy Maas