5 ms·

This is the first time I read about this drama, can somebody explain to me why getting forked is bad thing..?

by NietTim 12y ago

mcantelon 12y ago
Possible community fragmentation until one fork "wins.
thefreeman 12y ago
Well at a minimum you are dividing the development efforts between two different pieces of software. Which means (arguably) net contributions for either one should be less then if all contributions were going to a single project.
- pixl97 12y ago
  Forking is the sexual reproduction of the software world. Yes, just like the living world it takes a lot more resources to reproduce in this method, you end up with a much larger number of variants. These variants can fill various niches, such as security, speed, or ease of use. Most variants will get neglected or die off, but many will succeed, and some may be reincorporated into the original project (cross-breeding).
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Wouldn't forking be asexual reproduction? Only one parent...
    - robbrown451 12y ago
      Yes, but with horizontal gene transfer.
    - jebus989 12y ago
      But asexual reproduction can also be known as cloning! Just a bad/unfortunate analogy.
    - hashmymustache 12y ago
      Yes, binary fission more specifically
    - coriny 12y ago
      It could also be self-fertilisation, which is still a form of sexual reproduction. Sorry for being so pedantic.
  - chc 12y ago
    But in all likelihood, most forks will be worse along all axes because they have less development put into them.
    - jerf 12y ago
      You can't assume that development is going to go into the original fork when your core developer set is unhappy enough to create the second fork in the first place. If some hypothetical third party could mandate that no fork took place, you may very well find in your alternate universe that the development effort you are expressing fear may be split may simply go nowhere at all. You can not simply take it as a given that the developers are simply "stuck" with the original fork and if unable to do their own fork would simply contribute to the original.
      - chc 12y ago
        No, I can't assume that — and I didn't. I didn't say anything remotely like that. I was responding to a comment which said, essentially, that you will end up with lots of forks that are each strong in some particular way. This is not generally how it works in my experience. In general, the fork with (for example) better ease of use will also be the one with better speed because it will get much more time and attention than other forks.
        pixl97 12y ago
        I'm pretty sure you didn't read my comment at all, "Most will die off" was there for a reason. Also, don't confuse a fork dying off with it becoming something completely different.
        chc 12y ago
        I'm sorry if I gave that impression, but just because I didn't respond to those four particular words doesn't mean I didn't read your post at all. I have to believe "These variants can fill various niches, such as security, speed, or ease of use" and "many will succeed" were also there for a reason, and those are what I was responding to. My point is that for most projects, you don't end up with a bunch of viable forks. It's rare even to end up with two viable public forks, much less several. It's not much like sexual reproduction because sexual reproduction requires there to be multiple breeding entities.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Well at a minimum you are dividing the development efforts between two different pieces of software. Well, no. Because the realistic alternative to forking isn't that the people with irreconcilable differences that led to the fork continue working on the same code base, its that some subset of them abandon the code base altogether. Forking -- especially when the forks are under compatible open source licenses and useful code that is compatible with the vision on both sides of the divide can migrate from one fork to the other -- potentially increases, rather than decreases, the effective development effort on both sides of the forks compared to what it would otherwise be.
snlacks 12y ago
The reason why it seems like a really bad thing in this case: many top contributors left node over some core principles. But I agree with the article, when you read deeper into the comments and commits, it's not virulent in the record (though I'm sure tempers flared). That being said, I'm just a lowly web dev and barely understand what's going on under the hood.

This is the first time I read about this drama, can somebody explain to me why getting forked is bad thing..?

by NietTim 12y ago

This is the first time I read about this drama, can somebody explain to me why getting forked is bad thing..?

mcantelon 12y ago

Possible community fragmentation until one fork "wins.

thefreeman 12y ago

Well at a minimum you are dividing the development efforts between two different pieces of software. Which means (arguably) net contributions for either one should be less then if all contributions were going to a single project.

pixl97 12y ago
Forking is the sexual reproduction of the software world. Yes, just like the living world it takes a lot more resources to reproduce in this method, you end up with a much larger number of variants. These variants can fill various niches, such as security, speed, or ease of use. Most variants will get neglected or die off, but many will succeed, and some may be reincorporated into the original project (cross-breeding).
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Wouldn't forking be asexual reproduction? Only one parent...
  - robbrown451 12y ago
    Yes, but with horizontal gene transfer.
  - jebus989 12y ago
    But asexual reproduction can also be known as cloning! Just a bad/unfortunate analogy.
  - hashmymustache 12y ago
    Yes, binary fission more specifically
  - coriny 12y ago
    It could also be self-fertilisation, which is still a form of sexual reproduction. Sorry for being so pedantic.
- chc 12y ago
  But in all likelihood, most forks will be worse along all axes because they have less development put into them.
  - jerf 12y ago
    You can't assume that development is going to go into the original fork when your core developer set is unhappy enough to create the second fork in the first place. If some hypothetical third party could mandate that no fork took place, you may very well find in your alternate universe that the development effort you are expressing fear may be split may simply go nowhere at all. You can not simply take it as a given that the developers are simply "stuck" with the original fork and if unable to do their own fork would simply contribute to the original.
    - chc 12y ago
      No, I can't assume that — and I didn't. I didn't say anything remotely like that. I was responding to a comment which said, essentially, that you will end up with lots of forks that are each strong in some particular way. This is not generally how it works in my experience. In general, the fork with (for example) better ease of use will also be the one with better speed because it will get much more time and attention than other forks.
      - pixl97 12y ago
        I'm pretty sure you didn't read my comment at all, "Most will die off" was there for a reason. Also, don't confuse a fork dying off with it becoming something completely different.
        chc 12y ago
        I'm sorry if I gave that impression, but just because I didn't respond to those four particular words doesn't mean I didn't read your post at all. I have to believe "These variants can fill various niches, such as security, speed, or ease of use" and "many will succeed" were also there for a reason, and those are what I was responding to. My point is that for most projects, you don't end up with a bunch of viable forks. It's rare even to end up with two viable public forks, much less several. It's not much like sexual reproduction because sexual reproduction requires there to be multiple breeding entities.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Well at a minimum you are dividing the development efforts between two different pieces of software. Well, no. Because the realistic alternative to forking isn't that the people with irreconcilable differences that led to the fork continue working on the same code base, its that some subset of them abandon the code base altogether. Forking -- especially when the forks are under compatible open source licenses and useful code that is compatible with the vision on both sides of the divide can migrate from one fork to the other -- potentially increases, rather than decreases, the effective development effort on both sides of the forks compared to what it would otherwise be.

snlacks 12y ago

The reason why it seems like a really bad thing in this case: many top contributors left node over some core principles. But I agree with the article, when you read deeper into the comments and commits, it's not virulent in the record (though I'm sure tempers flared). That being said, I'm just a lowly web dev and barely understand what's going on under the hood.