3 ms·
It's interesting how this flips the relationship between the original author and subsequent forks. Let's say that a fork is created, and adds some substantial n
by notacoward 6y ago
It's interesting how this flips the relationship between the original author and subsequent forks. Let's say that a fork is created, and adds some substantial new feature. It's properly tested, and perhaps even proven in production. So Ben decides he wants it to be part of the base project, and starts pulling the pieces in. Now which is the OG and which is the fork? Which should people trust more? It will be interesting to see how that plays out, in this or some other project organized in a similar way.
- bityard 6y agoAll of the open source BSDs derive from the same original code base and have survived as forks doing exactly what you describe. They each have different communities and different goals but still frequently borrow patches from one another.
- notacoward 6y agoInteresting point. I'm not super familiar with the open-source BSD world (my last serious involvement with BSD was 4.3 Tahoe in 1991-2) but it seems like at least in that case the outcome has been pretty positive.
- mannykannot 6y agoPresumably, we should evaluate a pair of such forks as if they were independent - at least, it is not obvious to me that knowing the history of patches provides a basis for evaluating them any differently than if they were independent.