On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 12:54:10AM +0100, v4hn wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 06, 2016 at 10:14:59AM +1100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > I'm trying to make this implementation distributed as an option
> > with transmission bittorrent client package. I'm getting high
> > resistance from the "dev in chief":
> > http://trac.transmissionbt.com/ticket/6065
>
> He is not "resisting". He simply wants to know whether you will
> *maintain* your C port. He doesn't want to add a new dep if it
> is dead code from the start. You didn't answer to that yet.
Read my last post on their report tracker: you'll see it's unconsistent and
irrelevant since, basically, the "official" current transmission old API libutp
*is* dead code anyway (no updates for 3 years). He's asking me to maintain dead
code, if I want to be hypocrit I would say yes :) (maintaining in sync dead
code is 0-work).
There are 2 libutps: dead and old API libutp, the *current* transmission one...
and the rarely updated (see github) new API libutp, which is *not* the current in
transmission.
The focus of the current exchange is the *current* then dead libutp in
*current* transmission.
--
Sylvain
Received on Sat Feb 06 2016 - 01:37:33 CET