On 11/03/2012 08:38 PM, Nick Mathewson wrote: > On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Matthew Finkel > <matthew.fin...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On 11/02/2012 07:36 PM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote: >>> Nick Mathewson: >>>> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 1:34 PM, adrelanos <adrela...@riseup.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Could you blog it please? >>>> >>>> >>>> I'd like to see more discussion from more people here first, and see >>>> whether somebody steps up to say, "Yeah, I can maintain that" here, or >>>> whether somebody else who knows more than me about the issues has >> something >>>> to say. Otherwise I don't know whether to write a "looking for >> maintainer" >>>> post, a "who wants to fork" post, a "don't use Torsocks, use XYZZY" >> post, >>>> or what. >>>> >>> >>> If Robert wants someone to maintain it, I'd be happy to do so. I had >>> wanted to extend it to do some various things anyway. I think it would >>> be a suitable base for a bunch of things I'd like to do in the next year. >>> >>> All the best, >>> Jake >>> >> >> I saw this thread earlier but didn't have a chance to reply. I was >> thinking about volunteering to patch it up and maintain it if no one >> else wanted to take it on, also, but if you want to take the lead on it >> then I'm more than happy to help you where ever possible...assuming this >> is the direction that's decided upon. >> > > Okay, sounds like we've got some enthusiasm. Let's get started. I > volunteer to review commits and if people ask me to, and suggest that > asking me to review stuff for a while might be a smart idea. I just gave > myself commit access to the g...@git-rw.torproject.org repo too, in case > that helps. I am not planning to be a primary author here.
Thanks for adding one more thing to your plate! I know Jake can handle this but the more eyes we have looking at these initial changes the better it'll be. > > Given the amount of people asking us to apply and/or warning us that we > mustn't apply particular patches, I'm going to suggest the following > principles for a while: > * LET'S START MINIMAL. Let's stick to doing only the very major bugfixes > and obvious fixes for at least the next release or two, so that something > usable comes out. Agreed. To be honest, I haven't really looked at the code too much, so I'll start diving into that in a bit. (If there isn't one already...I haven't checked) Can we get a trac component added so we can track progress and such? > * NO ARCHITECTURAL ASTRONAUTICS. I'm always tempted when I come to a > codebase for the first time to refactor the heck out of it. Let's avoid > doing that till we have a little experience with this codebase. There > isn't all that much here: let's Yes...let's! :) Was there supposed to be more to that sentence? > * LOVE MEANS GET TESTED. If at all possible, we should make this codebase > easier to test (right now it wants you to install before testing), and > improve the coverage of the tests so that (if as people suspect) we're > likely to break things on one platform when we fix them on another, we can > at least find out fast whether a patch works everywhere. > Certainly sounds like a good idea. I'm going to have to familiarize myself with some of the other *nix platforms it does/should support. Just looking through the current issues on google code, for example, I don't know the internals of OSX well enough *yet* to know if [1] is even possible. But once we've compiled a list of all the current critical patches, Debian and others (assuming such a list doesn't exist already), then we start applying, testing, revising, etc. :) [1] https://code.google.com/p/torsocks/issues/detail?id=41 - Matt _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list tor-talk@lists.torproject.org https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
