Re: [pyOpenSSL] time for a fork

[<gl...@di...>]

On 08:49 am, da...@cr... wrote:
>I've been collecting patchs and maintaining a fork, and I'm more than
>happy to continue. I've tried to be active in seeking out patches and
>applying them. (I'll look at the bugs you quote there, and see if I
>can sort them out).

I noticed the last few responses you sent to this list, and I hoped =

you'd say something like this.
>One key thing would be for a number of the key consumers of the
>package to "bless" one particular fork as the successor. In case
>you're wondering, while I'm happy if this happens to be mine, I'd be
>equally happy to follow consensus on this.

Well, if I might flatter myself, Twisted is _the_ key consumer of the =

package ;-) and I (we) would not hesitate for a moment to "bless" your =

fork if you're willing to take up this responsibility.

There are other parties we need to alert, though, especially the various =

operating system packagers for pyOpenSSL.  Any of you listening?  I =

suspect there will be some discussion of whether there should be a name- =

change or not, but I don't know if anyone will insist.  It would, of =

course, make things easier if someone could figure out how to raise =

Martin!
>That's the tricky bit - everyone comes to the SF website for
>PyOpenSSL, and finds it dead.

Twisted and Divmod also have an obscene amount of Google juice, so a few =

links on our websites should rapidly drive your site to the top of the =

rankings for "pyopenssl".
>This is why I feel the first step would be to enumerate the forks out
>there, choose one, and direct people consistently to there.

I don't hear anyone else volunteering besides you :).