[Alpine-info] Extensions needed for proper crypto support.

[Mark Crispin]

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009, Eduardo Chappa wrote:

> :) It is foolish of you - or anyone else - to expect any announcement from

> :) UW that states such explicit, blunt words.

> No, it is not. The name of the University of Washington appears in the

> Main Screen of Alpine.


The fact that UW's name appears in the main screen has nothing to do with 
the fact that UW will just let Alpine fade away without ever explicitly 
saying in blunt words that the project is dead.


> I know that. But my point was to point what the current situation is. I

> was simply talking about the current situation, not a ficticious reality.


So you, an ex-student who was never a team member, somehow has exclusive 
knowledge of the current situation?

I knew that the project was going to die years ago; certainly no later 
than 2003.  If there was any doubt back then, there was none in late 
2005/early 2006.  I helped get it extended (and politically impossible to 
kill, whch pissed off certain people) through the end of 2007; that also 
helped get Alpine 2.00 to happen.

All projects come to an end eventually.  Pine and IMAP had good runs.

Damn good runs.

But that doesn't change reality, which I can assure you is not fictitious. 
I know what the web pages say.  I participated in their development.


> That is not the point. Whatever is that led to 70 revisions is not

> available for other people interested in developing Alpine.


So what?  It's only 70 revisions to the tree.  Some may not even apply to 
the public version of Alpine.

Alpine 2.00 works well enough.  If one of those 70 revisions is critical 
enough, it'll come out sooner or later, or get reinvented.


> If this

> development was done in a place where other people could write to it, then

> I would be up-to-date, and so would many other people. Maybe some of them

> would like to contribute code.


What makes you think that UW will EVER create a public write repository?

What makes you think that they would want such a thing?

What makes you think that they should have such a thing?

If you want to start developing Alpine, fork it now.  If UW poots out 
another version, then you can look at their changes and merge then.  If 
they don't poot a new version, then it doesn't matter.


> :) The latest code is Alpine 2.00.  Maybe UW has made a few hacks since

> :) then, but that is no different than your hacks, or RedHat's hacks, or

> :) Debian's hacks, or my hacks.

> No, the latest code is Alpine 2.01. There are a few bug fixes, mainly. Not

> hacks.


You don't know what "hack" means, but I won't waste my time instructing 
you.  Don't you dare sass me on this point.

The latest release is Alpine 2.00.  So UW has an svn repository with a few 
bugfixes.  Of course it would be called something other than 2.00.  That 
doesn't mean that 2.01 will ever see the light of day; nor that it would 
be called 2.01 as opposed to 2.10 as opposed to 3.00 as opposed to Alpine 
Vista XP.


> Yessense. The people that hold the control over the source code has not

> put it in a public place where it can be written by others.


Unlike Pine, UW does not have control over the Alpine source code. 
That's what the whole idiotic flamefest over the old Pine license was all 
about.

With the Apache license UW has control over UW's copy only.  What they do 
with their copy is their business.  What you do with your copy is your 
business.


> :) They gave you, a former student who was never a staff member, a

> :) permanent staff web page.  *My* staff web page was deleted.

> You never seem to get over this. Ok, here we go again. Let me explain it

> to you again.


Your "explanation" is funny because it is completely divorced from 
reality.

You were never a staff member.  You got special, privileged, access to 
create a staff.washington.edu web page.  I was at the meeting when that 
was decided.

Nor is myuw.net is for ex-employees.


> I am sure that if you wanted to do something

> similar, that they would consider it, and very likely you would be

> provided with such account.


Hah!  If you really believe that, you are on drugs.


> :) Don't wait for UW to do things for you.  Fork the code.  Set up a

> :) SourceForge repository.

> :) Or let Alpine die.  It's your choice.

> Or you can do it too, but I do see you doing it either.


My interest in Alpine is strictly as an end user who prefers a text based 
mail UI with working IMAP client code.

I have no interest in taking over Alpine development.  Alpine 2.00 works 
fine for me as-is.  I had to make a couple of trivial changes for 
iPhone/iPod Touch; but otherwise I have had neither need nor inclination 
to change it.

However, someone ought to take over and continue development; if for no 
other reason than staving off software rot.

That is the entire, and sole, purpose of my instigating such an effort 
now.


> You should not be

> preaching about what you are not doing.


If my advice to this list is unwanted, I will unsubscribe.

I already know that advice to you is futile.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.