On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Stéfan van der Walt <ste...@sun.ac.za> wrote: > If you are referring to the traditional concept of a fork, and not to > the type we frequently make on GitHub, then I'm surprised that no one > has objected already. What would a fork solve? To paraphrase the > regexp saying: after forking, we'll simply have two problems.
I concur with you here: github 'forks', yes, as many as possible! Hopefully every one of those will produce one or more PRs :) But a fork in the sense of a divergent parallel project? I think that would only be indicative of a complete failure to find a way to make progress here, and I doubt we're anywhere near that state. That forks are *possible* is indeed a valuable and important option in open source software, because it means that a truly dysfunctional original project team/direction can't hold a community hostage forever. But that doesn't mean that full-blown forks should be considered lightly, as they also carry enormous costs. I see absolutely nothing in the current scenario to even remotely consider that a full-blown fork would be a good idea, and I hope I'm right. It seems to me we're making progress on problems that led to real difficulties last year, but from multiple parties I see signs that give me reason to be optimistic that the project is getting better, not worse. Cheers, f _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
