On Saturday 08 August 2009 15:49:08 Patrick Shirkey wrote: > On 08/09/2009 05:44 AM, drew Roberts wrote: > > On Saturday 08 August 2009 14:25:37 Patrick Shirkey wrote: > >> Sorry but how exactly is this different from a fork? Is there a guide > >> that you have read somewhere that explains the exact steps required for > >> making a fork? Why have you now decided that you are not actually > >> forking the project when you originally declared that was the intended > >> result of your efforts? > > > > Perhaps his stated intention was to fork but his point is that at this > > point at least, no fork exists? Perhaps at this point, all that exists is > > the original binary and a decompiled version of the source? (Along with > > new text documents? Guessing here from the threads, not from checking > > either of the projects.) > > So this is a pre fork or a split or a bend but not an outright fork? > > IMO, it's so close to a fork as to be almost negligible. > > It's all the ground work in place but none of the follow through. > > It's like a "psyche" intended to frighten the recipient without actually > doing anything specific? >
Yeah, the ground shakes and you get all frightened, but not much happens, yet! The Impro-Visor code is out and on SF, so it worked, didn't it. Raymond _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
