Re: [9fans] factotum/802.1x catch 22?

["Noah Evans" <noah.evans@gmail.com>]

U-man,

The code is not guarded by winged monkeys. You've shown a great deal
of positive leadership during the GSOC application process, why not
extend that leadership by forking the code base? It would be easy
enough to establish a forked server with replica and allow the gsoc
mentors modification access.

This would allow an "unstable" version of the code for the gsoc
students to play with and share their contributions. This would also
let *you* be the master of your destiny. It would also allow the Plan
9 community to more easily try out wildly speculative changes.

Why not?

Noah

On 3/22/07, Uriel <uriel99@gmail.com> wrote:
> > *** Off Topic ***
> >
> > I had a brief chat with "patch" and it strikes me now that the delay
> > in accepting complex patches might be alleviated if such patches could
> > be reviewed by 9fans, that is to say, publicly, by request.  Say, for
> > example, that we are asked to comment on Axel's patch and we return a
> > verdict, as part of the "patch" process.  No need to publish the
> > request, those interested can look on sources and post the result
> > there.
>
> That was precisely the purpose of my original patch notification
> system, which russ didn't like and forced me to shut down.
>
> I proposed doing a similar thing in the plan9-changes list for whoever
> wanted to participate, but russ didn't like that either.
>
> If you like I can open up plan9-changes (I'm not sure, but I suspect
> it doesn't track new patches anymore, but that could be easily
> changed), or we could create a new plan9-patches where only new
> patches are posted (patches would get posted to plan9-changes when
> they are accepted or rejected.)
>
> In any case, without the collaboration of whoever sits at the other
> end of patch(1), the whole exercise is pointless.
>
> uriel
>