On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 12:54:10AM +0100, v4hn wrote: > On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 10:14:59AM +1100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > > I'm trying to make this implementation distributed as an option > > with transmission bittorrent client package. I'm getting high > > resistance from the "dev in chief": > > http://trac.transmissionbt.com/ticket/6065 > > He is not "resisting". He simply wants to know whether you will > *maintain* your C port. He doesn't want to add a new dep if it > is dead code from the start. You didn't answer to that yet.
Read my last post on their report tracker: you'll see it's unconsistent and irrelevant since, basically, the "official" current transmission old API libutp *is* dead code anyway (no updates for 3 years). He's asking me to maintain dead code, if I want to be hypocrit I would say yes :) (maintaining in sync dead code is 0-work). There are 2 libutps: dead and old API libutp, the *current* transmission one... and the rarely updated (see github) new API libutp, which is *not* the current in transmission. The focus of the current exchange is the *current* then dead libutp in *current* transmission. -- Sylvain
