Look: I work on a lot of open source projects; I assert a bunch of undocumented changes without any attempt at organizing them, pushed to a fork on GitHub is still close enough to "hoarding".
I don't agree, but I don't want to act as an outstanding coder. I don't even want to defend AirVPN developers because their software "Eddie" for Linux is ugly, IMHO, and I say it as an AirVPN customer too. But hey I hate Mono. :)
But the OpenVPN 3 fork and Hummingbird too appear to me as good, very good. The fork is well organized, the new parts are quite elegantly coded at least to me, very readable and well commented, and it's kept ahead in alignment with the main branch. Some time ago I also followed AirVPN commits to the main branch and after I took my time to watch the code I was astonished that they were rejected with some arguments that, I think, are either pretentious or wrong, but that's an opinion of mine, the facts can be seen by anyone looking at the code and some smart solutions/implementations I find delicious such as pointers to methods to optimize and save time in packets cipher dependent decisions. I wonder... if the initial commits to the main branch were not rejected, would AirVPN have forked? They forked only after a long debate... I don't know but...
