Add-on review times at ATN
mark.rousell at signal100.com
Wed Mar 20 15:02:14 UTC 2019
On 20/03/2019 12:34, Magnus Melin wrote:
> On 19-03-2019 18:28, Mark Rousell wrote:
>> Isn't one of the signs of a healthy open source ecosystem plenty of
> I disagree. Forks are usually only useful when they have other needs
> than upstream. Not to be confused with the short lived fork model of
> Github where you create a fork and try to send a PR upstream.
My view is that what is "useful" is surely for the market to decide.
The market, in this case, being user preference.
> If the only reason the fork was created (and then often, not
> maintained) is that the base project failed, the collaborative aspect
> of open source fell through.
I see it differently. There is no magic that says that collaboration is
how it always has to be. Competition is as valid as is collaboration. So
a new fork is a valid way of contributing. Successful forks will live on
(or be forked once again).
> That is, it's much more healthy for the ecosystem if people would join
> forces to make the original live on.
Perhaps so, ideally speaking, but it seems to me that reality can
sometimes get in the way. A genuinely abandoned project has no one to
collaborate with and so forking is a necessity if anyone is to continue
it at all. And people do not necessarily always agree on the directions
making collaboration non-sensical, and so forking can be a way for
competing views to find the approach that best suits the preferences of
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the tb-planning