On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 20:19, Leo Simons wrote:
> > > Which will lead to forking, competition, the community falling
> > > apart
> >
> > IMHO, there's absolutely nothing wrong with forking if forkers don't
> > abuse the Avalon brand, and enough information is provided to let users
> > choose. The healthiest approach is to encourage diversity on one hand,
> > and facilitate darwinian selection on the other. If you're worried about
> > forks hurting the Avalon brand, then create a fork that unifies the
> > other forks, and see if that flies ;)
>
> hmm. We've not had a fork before.
We have had massive numbers of forks before. One thing we have never
discouraged is forks. Berin will probably be the one who remembers it best -
at one stage we had 3 forks of framework cooking, we also had 4 different
pooling frameworks (3 from different people and one merged version).
This does not even mention the number of different container forks or
revolutions we have had and continue to have (remember Merlin1 was a fork of
phoenix and I encouraged Stephen to work on it and eventually submit it to
excalibur).
Forks are fine and healthy. Forced adoptions of untested code is never a good
idea and has always resulted in crapola that we later regret and spend a year
deprecating and replacing.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
-- Voltaire
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
