On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 18:26 +0200, Jonas Wulff wrote: > Unfourtunately every major change of the codebase makes it harder to > re-merge with the 'official' cinelerra version. That of course leads to > the questions how important that *really* is, considering that cinCV > seems to be the version more commonly used...
Look at it this way ... if you're not prepared for the code to divide, then what's the point of having a fork? Forks are bad, m'kay. I would argue that everyone's interest would be best served if one were to be subordinate to the other. Is HV happy to incorporate all of CVs patches into his code? Or, would HV be happy to submit patches to CV, and use CV? If he thought the quality of development of CV sufficiently high, then he would in effect be doing himself a favour - because he can submit patches, and let everyone else take care of the problem of integration. This business of forking is creating a lot of unnecessary work for everyone. _______________________________________________ Cinelerra mailing list [email protected] https://init.linpro.no/mailman/skolelinux.no/listinfo/cinelerra
