Subject: Re: [boost] RFC: Community maintained libraries
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-07 21:12:52
On Dec 7, 2013, at 2:59 PM, "Niall Douglas" <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 6 Dec 2013 at 21:05, Rob Stewart wrote:
>>>>> The traditional solution is forking of course, so those interested enough fork a library and take it in new directions. Boost is
>>>>> particularly fork unfriendly however - I don't believe anyone has EVER seriously suggested forking any non-trivial chunk of Boost.
>>>> Signals2 is an excellent example of just such a thing. We also have cases like Lambda vs. Phoenix.
>>> That's evolution of a component, not forking which would involve multiple libraries being taken in a new direction together.
>> You previously used the phrase, "those interested enough fork a library", but when I challenge your point, you decide that forking
>> requires many libraries taken elsewhere?
> I'll copy and paste from
> "The term often implies not merely a development branch, but a split in the developer community, a form of schism"
That fits my example just fine. A second person thought Signals would be better if modified. The original maintainer didn't want to change it. Thus, a fork of Signals was created and we now have Signals2 alongside (the now-deprecated, IIRC) Signals.
> Forking isn't usually about software, it's about differences in the philosophy behind the software.
> Does this improve your understanding?
Thanks for all of that, but my "understanding" comment was WRT your "significant patches" commentary. (It's probably not productive to revisit that anyway.)
(Sent from my portable computation engine)