Indan Zupancic wrote:
I think something like Arch or Subversion, with an accompanying Wiki for developers and users to converse (and converge) is a good idea.
I'm starting to doubt the whole idea, how nice it may be: Are there any other active patch makers out there except us?
If there are, they're hiding in the woodwork. However, this is partly caused by the current way patches are handled. Dillo is not the most patch-friendly project I know of.
If not, then is it worth all the trouble? For me it's very easy to keep my https patch in sync with your tabs+frames patch, I'll just sync with CVS when you have a new version, and then attach your version number to the filename, so that it's clear which patches are compatible with eachother. Of course doing the same with other patches won't be as easy, because they may conflict, something that's unlikely with the https patch and frames+tabs patch.
But that means you are dependent on my quirky release schedule... Something you might not like. There can be weeks, but also days between paches. And I do not always keep up to date with the CVS version du jour. But no, I do not know if it is worth the trouble to set up an Arch/Subversion server for this. Unless...
What are the advantages of being a GNU project?
Exposure, mindshare. 'Everybody knows GNU'. Continuity of maintenance, sort of. Hosting at Savannah (also open to non-GNU projects). No Arch yet, but that might change... Anyway, it is not ours to decide for Dillo to apply to become a GNU project. Jorge, have you thought about this possibility? Cheers//Frank -- WWWWW ________________________ ## o o\ / Frank de Lange \ }# \| / +46-734352015 \ \ `--| _/ <Hacker for Hire> \ `---' \ +31-640037120 / \ frank@unternet.org / `------------------------' [ "Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est." ]