On 8 July 2011 23:34, Greg Brown <gk_br...@verizon.net> wrote: >> I think this kind of forking could be a healthy way to add "exotic" features >> that might skew the perception of that the Serializer interface encapsulates. > > ...snip... > IMO forking in any capacity is not "healthy". It only serves to fragment the > code and community. Prototyping - yes. Forking - no.
As I asked before, what other option is there to forking if I, or anyone else, wishes to share something derived from Pivot? (Apologies if I am misusing the term forking.) If a feature is not wanted by the 'main' project, but might be useful to others, then forking and making it public provides the feature to others who might be interested (assuming that the licensing terms allow it and are adhered to). Keeping it private doesn't seem like a solution that benefits anyone. If the project clearly states its purposes and intentions, especially if it is an experimental feature which is not intended to be merged back into the original source tree, then its use is a free choice for someone to make. They can be made aware if there is no intention of maintaining ongoing compatibility, or furthering development past a certain point. If it is of no interest to anyone, then nobody will get hurt or confused. The download counter on the hosting site might just end up being a monument to the uselessness of the feature in the first place. :) The title of this thread sums up my intentions - simply to suggest a change that might be useful. There has not been a huge amount of interest in it, and even if there had been, I would be quite happy for BXMLSerializer to remain unchanged if that is where the consensus was. Chris
