> If we want to share contributions between forks we need a compatibility layer > if we don't want to we don't have to.
adding more compatibility layers doesn't generally makes sharing of contributions easier. the more forks diverge the harder it will be, no matter how many layers you add. unless you actually *want* this complexity and measure your achieved progress in terms of how much complexity you generated... i prefer a more pragmatic approach, as much as 9front has diverged it's very easy to apply patches using the well known git principles based on a common initial commit. did you ever hear of the git implementation that ori has implemented? and, to contradict my earlier point maybe you could even call that "our compatibility layer". > I don't have a problem respecting any fork of plan9. I will give back to > other forks as much as I take from them. And if I contribute code to plan9 > than I will make sure that it doesn't make use of enhancements I am using > within my fork respect the coding styles of such a compatibility layer if one > is ever defined. The whole discussion is about interoperability between forks. we even respect and worship the coding styles of bell-labs. so there would be no break, with or without compatibility layer, as long as you didn't break with that one either. ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tcf128fa955b8aafc-M4eb82cf98fb7d990a3b189f6 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
