Re: [Slashcode-general] Jumping in here late ... Slashcode is Dead ...

[Marc G. F. <sc...@hu...>]

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Chris Nandor wrote:

> On Sep 21, 2009, at 11:02, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
>> Chris, you live!!
>
> I replied on Sept. 18 to your private email last week.

Didn't see it ... have to check my spam filters, might have quarantined it 
...

> It could be there's problems with the old data dumps.  I don't know. The 
> code works fine.

Let me try with the latest public repo ... is there an 'upgrade path' for 
upgrading from 2.2.6 -> repo?  Or should it just work if I untar over the 
old, or ... ?

> We hook into many parts of the Apache 1.x cycle, and it's changed 
> significantly in 2.x.  (Not to mention, of course, being a completely 
> different type of server, we'd have to expend significant resources into 
> figuring out how best to configure and deploy the servers for our needs. 
> No small task there.)

As someone else asked, if the work was down outside of slashdot, could it 
be incorporated into http://www.slashcode.com?

> I am not sure where that function would be called, or what that has to 
> do with different perl versions.

Again, let me test on the newer code ... I suspect that its something that 
was long fixed ...

> Yeah the URLs changed.  Right now it is on (and out of date) on github. 
> I want to put it on SourceForge too.  And I want it done this week or 
> next.  Stay tuned.  It's something we've pushed to fix up in the last 
> month or so, and I hope it's done soon.

Great news, thanks ...

> I do not anticipate any releases.  We simply do not have the resources.

So, what is at http://www.slashcode.com is literally what is running on 
slashdot.org?  "Community involvement" in that code base (either as code, 
or releases) isn't possible?

> If someone is interested in this, the only thing I'd request is that you 
> discuss the name with us before releasing ... the company owns the 
> naming rights to some degree and I don't know how to deal with that. But 
> the rest of the code is open, so knock yourself out.

Rather contribute into the existing project vs do a parallel development, 
but I'm gathering that that isn't possible?

> Most of what is being discussed would not require a fork; even Apache2
> support, being mostly in a few modules, could be perhaps designed as
> drop-in replacements (and patches to the main codebase requiring a
> small amount of work to such ends would be welcome).

Doing any fork would be very unappealing ... and I suspect that, based on 
what I've heard here, if the main repo has what alot of ppl thought were 
missing already, its only teh Apache 2 that seems to be at issue ...

so the only *major* issue I can see (if I'm understandign things right) is 
doing new releases ... we'd have to fork to do that, wouldn't we?  Or is 
there something else we can do to get past the old 2.2.6 and some new code 
in a release package?

----
Marc G. Fournier                        Hub.Org Hosting Solutions S.A.
sc...@hu...                                     http://www.hub.org

Yahoo:yscrappy    Skype: hub.org    ICQ:7615664    MSN:sc...@hu...