Mailing List Archive

Hi Dan, Antonio, all,
as Antonio seems to be relatively inactive, I would like to propose that we create a new repository on github, which is based on the vpnc-nortel branch of the current SVN repository. To my understanding, the vpnc-nortel branch is the most advanced version of vpnc. Further modifications can then be made on top of that in the new git repository...

What do you think?

Best regards,
Fabian

Am 14.10.2013 um 23:33 schrieb Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com>:

> Hi Antonio!
>
> Hope you're OK, it's been a couple months since you've posted to the
> list. Are you still involved with vpnc?
>
> Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
> vpnc-devel mailing list
> vpnc-devel@unix-ag.uni-kl.de
> https://lists.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/mailman/listinfo/vpnc-devel
> http://www.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/~massar/vpnc/
>

On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 19:24 +0100, Fabian Jäger wrote:
> Hi Dan, Antonio, all,
> as Antonio seems to be relatively inactive, I would like to propose that we create a new repository on github, which is based on the vpnc-nortel branch of the current SVN repository. To my understanding, the vpnc-nortel branch is the most advanced version of vpnc. Further modifications can then be made on top of that in the new git repository...

+1 for git, certainly. I don't have a lot of time to do review or
anything, but I'm happy to to help look over patches occasionally. More
eyes are better. Though before vpnc-nortel gets "merged" (or, really,
before the new stuff gets based off it), are we sure it doesn't impact
the stability of the current SVN head?

Dan

> What do you think?
>
> Best regards,
> Fabian
>
> Am 14.10.2013 um 23:33 schrieb Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com>:
>
> > Hi Antonio!
> >
> > Hope you're OK, it's been a couple months since you've posted to the
> > list. Are you still involved with vpnc?
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > vpnc-devel mailing list
> > vpnc-devel@unix-ag.uni-kl.de
> > https://lists.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/mailman/listinfo/vpnc-devel
> > http://www.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/~massar/vpnc/
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> vpnc-devel mailing list
> vpnc-devel@unix-ag.uni-kl.de
> https://lists.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/mailman/listinfo/vpnc-devel
> http://www.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/~massar/vpnc/


_______________________________________________
vpnc-devel mailing list
vpnc-devel@unix-ag.uni-kl.de
https://lists.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/mailman/listinfo/vpnc-devel
http://www.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/~massar/vpnc/

I don't see a problem in using vpnc-nortel as the basis for future developments etc. Why should it impact the stability of the SVN head? The current SVN head (trunk) is behind the vpnc-nortel branch feature-wise and the rest of the code is as mature.

Best regards,
Fabian

Am 12.11.2013 um 20:27 schrieb Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com>:

> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 19:24 +0100, Fabian Jäger wrote:
>> Hi Dan, Antonio, all,
>> as Antonio seems to be relatively inactive, I would like to propose that we create a new repository on github, which is based on the vpnc-nortel branch of the current SVN repository. To my understanding, the vpnc-nortel branch is the most advanced version of vpnc. Further modifications can then be made on top of that in the new git repository...
>
> +1 for git, certainly. I don't have a lot of time to do review or
> anything, but I'm happy to to help look over patches occasionally. More
> eyes are better. Though before vpnc-nortel gets "merged" (or, really,
> before the new stuff gets based off it), are we sure it doesn't impact
> the stability of the current SVN head?
>
> Dan

Fabian Jäger wrote:
> I don't see a problem in using vpnc-nortel as the basis for future developments etc. Why should it impact the stability of the SVN head? The current SVN head (trunk) is behind the vpnc-nortel branch feature-wise and the rest of the code is as mature.

Are you sure? Antonio wrote on 03/10/13 16:05 under thread

Re: [vpnc-devel] Issues with XAUTH and 2-factor authentication (Username/Password and SecureID) and how I got mine working

<quote>
I have commit your patch to SVN repository.
I have also included a modified version in the Nortel branch. The
target is to have Nortel branch supporting "also" Cisco.
</quote>


Below I am quoting what I gathered on this in the past:
<quote>
BTW, I am puzzled whether we should also provide packages for the branched versions of vpnc. It looks I could live better with vpnc-nortel binary because it uses UDP instead of ESP/AH packet and is said to be faster and if I got it right should still work against the Cisco concentrator I do connect to.

http://svn.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/vpnc/branches/
http://lists.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/pipermail/vpnc-devel/2009-October/003293.html
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.network.vpnc.devel/3426
</quote>


However, I am not a vpnc developer so maybe situation has cleared up ...
But I think not for me as a user. It still seems the HEAD is the
way to go and the other branches are aimed to be merged into HEAD after
maturation. I don't think it is a good idea to derive anything from
nortel or other branches.

Personally, I don't think it is a good idea to fork anything into a new
repository. Taking over some else's code is not fair, no matter he/she
is busy and the license permits that. Few times happened somebody in the
world made a "package2" which by its name seemed like a successor of "package",
a fairly unfair trick as in that particular case the original author had
to fight for that and explain the follower is not his code at all, etc,
etc. And not surprisingly he lost because everybody gets the idea that
package2 is just a newer package so why bother to download the "old" stuff?

Just my 2cents.
Martin




>
> Best regards,
> Fabian
>
> Am 12.11.2013 um 20:27 schrieb Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com <mailto:dcbw@redhat.com>>:
>
>> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 19:24 +0100, Fabian Jäger wrote:
>>> Hi Dan, Antonio, all,
>>> as Antonio seems to be relatively inactive, I would like to propose that we create a new repository on github, which is based on the vpnc-nortel branch of the current SVN repository. To my understanding, the vpnc-nortel branch is the most advanced version of vpnc. Further modifications can then be made on top of that in the new git repository...
>>
>> +1 for git, certainly. I don't have a lot of time to do review or
>> anything, but I'm happy to to help look over patches occasionally. More
>> eyes are better. Though before vpnc-nortel gets "merged" (or, really,
>> before the new stuff gets based off it), are we sure it doesn't impact
>> the stability of the current SVN head?
>>
>> Dan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vpnc-devel mailing list
> vpnc-devel@unix-ag.uni-kl.de
> https://lists.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/mailman/listinfo/vpnc-devel
> http://www.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/~massar/vpnc/
_______________________________________________
vpnc-devel mailing list
vpnc-devel@unix-ag.uni-kl.de
https://lists.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/mailman/listinfo/vpnc-devel
http://www.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/~massar/vpnc/

Don't get me wrong here. I don't want to take away anybody's work! I am just a developer who is actively using vpnc by building my own application (Shimo) on top of it. Therefore, I would like to see a repository that is actively maintained. I am using the vpnc-nortel branch and I would also like to see this branch getting merged into HEAD, but so far there seemed not much interest in such an activity...

There is already an unofficial updated version (0.5.4beta) out there, which brings additional features to vpnc, but which is not integrated into any repository. This should not happen and I think that a new repository (e.g. on github) could help organizing these fixes, updates etc. Maybe there will be a group of people maintaining the new repository jointly?

Best regards,
Fabian


Am 12.11.2013 um 21:16 schrieb Martin Mokrejs <mmokrejs@fold.natur.cuni.cz>:

> Fabian Jäger wrote:
>> I don't see a problem in using vpnc-nortel as the basis for future developments etc. Why should it impact the stability of the SVN head? The current SVN head (trunk) is behind the vpnc-nortel branch feature-wise and the rest of the code is as mature.
>
> Are you sure? Antonio wrote on 03/10/13 16:05 under thread
>
> Re: [vpnc-devel] Issues with XAUTH and 2-factor authentication (Username/Password and SecureID) and how I got mine working
>
> <quote>
> I have commit your patch to SVN repository.
> I have also included a modified version in the Nortel branch. The
> target is to have Nortel branch supporting "also" Cisco.
> </quote>
>
>
> Below I am quoting what I gathered on this in the past:
> <quote>
> BTW, I am puzzled whether we should also provide packages for the branched versions of vpnc. It looks I could live better with vpnc-nortel binary because it uses UDP instead of ESP/AH packet and is said to be faster and if I got it right should still work against the Cisco concentrator I do connect to.
>
> http://svn.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/vpnc/branches/
> http://lists.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/pipermail/vpnc-devel/2009-October/003293.html
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.network.vpnc.devel/3426
> </quote>
>
>
> However, I am not a vpnc developer so maybe situation has cleared up ...
> But I think not for me as a user. It still seems the HEAD is the
> way to go and the other branches are aimed to be merged into HEAD after
> maturation. I don't think it is a good idea to derive anything from
> nortel or other branches.
>
> Personally, I don't think it is a good idea to fork anything into a new
> repository. Taking over some else's code is not fair, no matter he/she
> is busy and the license permits that. Few times happened somebody in the
> world made a "package2" which by its name seemed like a successor of "package",
> a fairly unfair trick as in that particular case the original author had
> to fight for that and explain the follower is not his code at all, etc,
> etc. And not surprisingly he lost because everybody gets the idea that
> package2 is just a newer package so why bother to download the "old" stuff?
>
> Just my 2cents.
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Fabian
>>
>> Am 12.11.2013 um 20:27 schrieb Dan Williams <dcbw@redhat.com <mailto:dcbw@redhat.com>>:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2013-11-12 at 19:24 +0100, Fabian Jäger wrote:
>>>> Hi Dan, Antonio, all,
>>>> as Antonio seems to be relatively inactive, I would like to propose that we create a new repository on github, which is based on the vpnc-nortel branch of the current SVN repository. To my understanding, the vpnc-nortel branch is the most advanced version of vpnc. Further modifications can then be made on top of that in the new git repository...
>>>
>>> +1 for git, certainly. I don't have a lot of time to do review or
>>> anything, but I'm happy to to help look over patches occasionally. More
>>> eyes are better. Though before vpnc-nortel gets "merged" (or, really,
>>> before the new stuff gets based off it), are we sure it doesn't impact
>>> the stability of the current SVN head?
>>>
>>> Dan
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> vpnc-devel mailing list
>> vpnc-devel@unix-ag.uni-kl.de
>> https://lists.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/mailman/listinfo/vpnc-devel
>> http://www.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/~massar/vpnc/
> _______________________________________________
> vpnc-devel mailing list
> vpnc-devel@unix-ag.uni-kl.de
> https://lists.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/mailman/listinfo/vpnc-devel
> http://www.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/~massar/vpnc/

Hi Dan, Fabian, all,

unfortunately my job is still draining all my time; recently my
contribute to maintain vpnc has been close to zero.
The email from Dan is pending in my inbox since already 30 days, sorry for this!

To clarify the status of the code:
vpnc "trunk" is the main version and is the one included and tested in
most (but not all) distro.
The code in "nortel" branch is working, but not clean as the one in "trunk".
I have spent quite some time to push in "nortel" all the patches
available in "trunk", also those independent from "nortel"
functionality.
Apart from potential mistakes, everyone should be able to use and test
"nortel" version in place of "trunk". Some distro is already packaging
"nortel".
Next step should be cleanup of "nortel" and then merge in "trunk" (or
just replace "trunk" with "nortel").

Now that one part of my job is going over, my plan is to return on
vpnc code, with following priorities:
- commit few pending patches;
- fix the issue with Avaya servers (disconnect after 30 seconds).
Avaya has replaced Nortel in the market;
- fix a new issue reported by Keith Brown, on "one" Cisco server.
I would like to receive patches to fix last two items, but till now no
contributions.
Then should be time to tag a new version.

Anyway, this activity should let me put hands in this code again to
rethink about code cleanup.
Contributions are welcome.

I'm not against moving the repository to github or other places.
But if the purpose is just the add new contributors, I believe Maurice
Massar can help enabling other accounts to write on existing SVN.
If purpose is just to use git, well I use it for vpnc since years;
thanks to git-svn, it's almost transparent.

I also checked the unofficial 0.5.4beta.
Would be nice to get access to the repository to check each patch with
relative comments; a big final blob is hard to digest.
This is an invitation to them to contribute ;)

Best Regards,
Antonio
_______________________________________________
vpnc-devel mailing list
vpnc-devel@unix-ag.uni-kl.de
https://lists.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/mailman/listinfo/vpnc-devel
http://www.unix-ag.uni-kl.de/~massar/vpnc/

Hi Antonio,
thanks for sharing your view on the current situation.

I think that moving vpnc to github would definitely help as we would have features like pull requests to simplify patch submissions etc.

Moreover, the merge of trunk and vpnc-nortel should be done as soon as possible. Currently, there are both branches used in applications, distributions etc. This should be avoided in the future. branches should be used for experimenting with new features or bug fixes and not for deployment. I would really like to help with merging vpnc-nortel into trunk. Please let me know how we can do that as efficiently as possible. After the merge, I would recommend the porting to a github repository...

Best regards,
Fabian


Am 13.11.2013 um 15:37 schrieb Antonio Borneo <borneo.antonio@gmail.com>:

> Hi Dan, Fabian, all,
>
> unfortunately my job is still draining all my time; recently my
> contribute to maintain vpnc has been close to zero.
> The email from Dan is pending in my inbox since already 30 days, sorry for this!
>
> To clarify the status of the code:
> vpnc "trunk" is the main version and is the one included and tested in
> most (but not all) distro.
> The code in "nortel" branch is working, but not clean as the one in "trunk".
> I have spent quite some time to push in "nortel" all the patches
> available in "trunk", also those independent from "nortel"
> functionality.
> Apart from potential mistakes, everyone should be able to use and test
> "nortel" version in place of "trunk". Some distro is already packaging
> "nortel".
> Next step should be cleanup of "nortel" and then merge in "trunk" (or
> just replace "trunk" with "nortel").
>
> Now that one part of my job is going over, my plan is to return on
> vpnc code, with following priorities:
> - commit few pending patches;
> - fix the issue with Avaya servers (disconnect after 30 seconds).
> Avaya has replaced Nortel in the market;
> - fix a new issue reported by Keith Brown, on "one" Cisco server.
> I would like to receive patches to fix last two items, but till now no
> contributions.
> Then should be time to tag a new version.
>
> Anyway, this activity should let me put hands in this code again to
> rethink about code cleanup.
> Contributions are welcome.
>
> I'm not against moving the repository to github or other places.
> But if the purpose is just the add new contributors, I believe Maurice
> Massar can help enabling other accounts to write on existing SVN.
> If purpose is just to use git, well I use it for vpnc since years;
> thanks to git-svn, it's almost transparent.
>
> I also checked the unofficial 0.5.4beta.
> Would be nice to get access to the repository to check each patch with
> relative comments; a big final blob is hard to digest.
> This is an invitation to them to contribute ;)
>
> Best Regards,
> Antonio
>