* On 09 Apr 2013, Petr Pisar wrote: > On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 03:31:19PM -0500, Derek Martin wrote: > > As for the comment regarding the Mutt fork: in principle that's great, > > but in practice IMO forks are bad: They divide the effort, and cause > > problems potentially for both (or all) projects involved, trying to > > track important changes between them. I don't like forks, and unless > > there's a very very clear center of mass developing around one (and > > there have been a few prominent examples in my lifetime), I don't ever > > want to contribute to one. > > > I absolutly agree with you. But there is at least one serious reason for the > fork: Current upstream lacks sense for maintenance.
In my opinion Karel Zak's efforts would better have been directed by working with "upstream" than by forking. He never made that effort, to my knowledge. Indeed I don't believe he's ever posted to this list. To me, that offsets any reasons for the fork, leaving zero. -- David Champion • d...@bikeshed.us
