> This is a strike against any namespace system that allows namespace ownership to unexpectedly change. Discontinuous identity has a couple of issues. Hard agr

> This is a strike against any namespace system that allows namespace ownership to unexpectedly change. Discontinuous identity has a couple of issues. Hard agree but this has nothing to do with namespaces. This is equally applicable to names in a flat registry. I don't see the point of bringing this up in this article. > there are also real benefits. [...] discourages forks What. How? Why? I guess there's possibly some valid argument for disliking forks (though it's certainly not put forward in this article), but discouraging them via package registry structure is... delusional. Forks are a reality of software and they neither happen as a result of registry structures, nor can the be discouraged by their designs. They happen for entirely external, human reasons, and a well-designed registry structure (i.e. a non-flat one) will be set up to be resilient to forking.