On 11-Jun-2009, at 13:45, Charles Gregory wrote:
2) I disagree that another person could/should 'fork' the botnet
plug-in.
This would cause confusion even if care was taken to rename the
plug-in
or otherwise distinguish the two versions for the newbie looking to
download a recommended plug-in. For something so specific, there
*should* be an 'official' version - yours. I would only 'fork' the
development for a major design philosophy split. The creation of
third-party patches is the correct solution for situations like
these.
1) there's nothing wrong with forking.
2) n00bs should not be installing SA or admining mailservers anyway
3) n00bs who do, will find a forked botnet addon the least of their
problems.
4) Sounds to me like this 'patch' *IS* a major design philosophy split.
5) Badgering someone to update on your schedule something they wrote
and released for free is rude.
3) It is *reasonable* to request that the main distribution of a
software
package have included within it any patch that has stood the test of
time in use as a third-pary patch,
Your definition of 'withstood the test of time' does not match up with
the definition of the project developer. This is fine, there is a
solution. It's called 'forking'.
But I would never guess from the package that a patch was
available or
useful.
It is useful for SOME people under SOME conditions. It is not
*universally* useful.
So if I may recommend: Why not include the patch as a separate file
in your download,
John explained why. This patch does not represent the direction he
wants to go with Botnet. Remember that comment about design philosophy?
--
Tina... homecoming is spelled c *O* m
