<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Brian Warner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:warner@lothar.com">warner@lothar.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">Jody Harris wrote:<br>
> I asked a question about forking Twisted for the short term. There was<br>
> no response to that. Either, "that's a good idea with obvious<br>
> consequences.....," or "That's stupid because....."<br>
<br>
</div>Eh, I think mostly it's just infeasible. It would take a lot of time and<br>
work for a hypothetical fork to become as well tested, packaged, and<br>
distributed as the mainline Twisted is, and then it would require a lot<br>
of work to keep it from falling out-of-date. I believe it would be<br>
faster to get the necessary patch accepted into mainline.<br>
<br>
The next step towards that is to write a unit test for the patch.<br>
<a href="http://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/3462" target="_blank">http://twistedmatrix.com/trac/ticket/3462</a> is the place to submit such a<br>
patch.<br><br></blockquote><div>Well, that certainly wreaks.... </div><div><br></div><div>So, Tahoe-LAFS has broken usability pending a patch that another software team is reluctant to code a test for....</div><div><br></div>
<div>yippee. </div></div><br>