<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 20/03/2019 12:34, Magnus Melin wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:e42dc1e7-01f0-4fb3-ee79-c5d99241fb48@iki.fi"
type="cite">On 19-03-2019 18:28, Mark Rousell wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
Isn't one of the signs of a healthy open source ecosystem plenty
of forking?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.
</blockquote>
<br>
My view is that what is "useful" is surely for the market to decide.
<br>
<br>
The market, in this case, being user preference.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:e42dc1e7-01f0-4fb3-ee79-c5d99241fb48@iki.fi"
type="cite">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.</blockquote>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:e42dc1e7-01f0-4fb3-ee79-c5d99241fb48@iki.fi"
type="cite">That is, it's much more healthy for the ecosystem if
people would join forces to make the original live on.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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 users.<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Mark Rousell
</pre>
</body>
</html>