3 ms·
What's the alternative then? Maintaining a fork? It's the same update problems just with more hassle.
by realusername 4y ago
What's the alternative then? Maintaining a fork? It's the same update problems just with more hassle.
- Nullabillity 4y agoYes, maintaining a fork means that you're explicitly taking on the maintenance burden from that point on, and are on your own in terms of updates. That's a reasonable commitment to ask for if you're poking around in implementation details.
- ricardobeat 4y ago> you're explicitly taking on the maintenance burden How are you not taking the burden of maintenance when writing code that uses private-by-convention properties? The difference seems pretty abstract, a fork will require the same rework when internal properties change.
- Nullabillity 4y agoYes, accessing the internal parts is taking on the burden. Forking is acknowledging that you have done so.
- realusername 4y agoSo basically it's the same result (you need to manage updates yourself and test your changes) except that your modifications are now scattered around dozen of repositories instead of one, and what's the benefit of this added complexity compared to a patch? None that I can see?