Eggdev: nick-len var (Was: Re: Eggheads: Long nicknames in 1.4.2 ?)

Tothwolf tothwolf at
Wed Mar 3 00:43:07 CST 1999

On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Fabian Knittel wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 08:56:11AM -0800, Ben Dover wrote:
> > > From: "Wiktor Wodecki" <wodecki at>
> > >
> [...]
> > > 1.4 is only bugfix, is only stable, no features
> > 
> > Then it is dead.  stagnant. and, without patches will become a mere relic, 
> > like 8080 CPUs.
> > 
> > What made the 1.1.5 so prolific is that once the devteam declared it stable 
> > and moved on to the 1.2/1.3, patches were released to add features, change 
> > function, and fix some exploits and bugs.  It is not that the 1.1.5 itself 
> > was remarkably stable and secure but that with optional patches it was a 
> > viable platform to build on.
> Feel free to release patches for 1.4 which add features. As far as I
> know we already have a patches directory for unsupported patches in
> our FTP structure.

99% of users do not know how to apply patches, and a good amount wouldn't
bother even if they far as they are concerned, it's "too much
trouble". And personally, I don't blame them.

> I see absolutely no reason for the dev team to officially support old
> stable trees which have been replaced by newer stable trees. As soon
> as 1.5 is stable, then that's what people should upgrade too. If they
> want to use older version that's fine with me.  But I don't see why
> we should worry about that ... we then have a working alternative.

I see it as very important. The 1.4 tree is very stable now. The last
major bug that crashed the bot on a reg basis was the share bug. (Why no
one else never was able to find it, I'll never know...)

The new 1.5 tree is nice, and has lots of features that show major
potential, but it's not 100% stable and not 100% complete. It still has
problems compiling on boxes that 1.4 compiles fine on, and isn't nearly as
stable and bug-free. Currently, 1.5 is not the bot of choice for the
average user, 1.4 is.

> Always keep in mind that we don't have unlimited ressources, but if
> someone feels like supporting old trees or back-porting features to
> stable trees that's their business and I won't stop them. They will be
> unofficial though.

I wouldn't mind backporting fixes and stable code, but I won't bother if
it won't make the tree.

> We have a lot to work on even without back-porting issues.

We? Not everyone has projects currently. I'm very sure there would be
others intrested in backporting fixes and possibly even features that had
been proven stable.

> This is just my opinion and I - personally - won't get involved in
> back-porting efforts.

Thats alright, you have your hands full with all the new configure/
Makefile stuff, among other things...I guess you see why I spent so much
time on it now...


More information about the Eggdev mailing list