Hello Noel, it is nice to know that the original developers of UnitTest++ still live. I want to make a statement and want you clearly understand my motivations behind the fork of UnitTest++.
For starters it was never really my intention to create a full fork. I was and am still hoping that 95% of the forked code can go into the main (as maintained at SourceForge) code base. I am lazy and do need an additional project on my hands. My fear was that doing nothing will slowly dissolve the community. I called it UnitTest++ since it is common to keep names of dormant projects. It is true that if we keep a true fork of the project I need to rename it; but as I stated above I do really intend to take that path. I am still hoping that you can integrate some or all changes of the library. I was calling a 1.5 release, since it is a logical time frame for integrating some improvements. When time would have come I would have asked you to integrate the changes and begged you to make a release. I did not intent do step on your toes and I did not know that you had plans for a new release. The question to go on and fork even if only temporary was made in the mailing list. As developers of UnitTest++ I assume that you did get the mail and could have stated your interest and opinion. If you are serious of dedicating more time and effort into UnitTest++ I am ready to stand down all development of UnitTest++ and give the wheel back to it's rightful owner. If you will allow me I can take some work of your shoulders in agreement with your guidelines. Nevertheless, should I feel the need to maintain the fork I will honor your request. Sean P.S. This email was CCed to UT mailing list because it is of general interest. On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Noel Llopis <llo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Sean, > > I just found out that you branched UnitTest++ on Git. I think it's perfectly > fine for people to branch from UT++ to add their own tweaks and > modifications. That's great actually, and it's very much what we had hoped > people would do when we created UT++. > > However, I see that you're still calling it UnitTest++ and are about to make > a public 1.5 release. I've received several emails from people confused about > it, thinking that it was the main branch of UnitTest++. > > Charles and I are still planning on making updates as we see it necessary to > the UT++ codebase, and we're about to make a 1.5 release. We're still > committed to making sure that UnitTest++ stays true to the original goals and > philosophy behind it. So I'd like to ask you to rename the project in some > way as to make it clear that it is *not* the original UnitTest++. It's fine > if you want to say that it was derived from UT++, but right now it's too > confusing. > > We appreciate your understanding in this issue. Let us know if you have any > questions. > Thanks. > > > --Noel > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com _______________________________________________ unittest-cpp-devel mailing list unittest-cpp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/unittest-cpp-devel
