On 11/9/06, Travis Willard <travisw@wmpub.ca> wrote:
Also, as far as I can tell, forking doesn't immediately imply that contributions to the original tree have to stop. I know I, for one, really appreciate all your contributions. I'm positive phrak does too, beyond any doubt.
That's 100% correct. This is not about contributions or anything like that. Forking does not imply that there is any animosity and that contributions are not welcome (i.e. the hardened-php guys are regular contributors back to php). As with before, my _ENTIRE_ issue can be summed up in one phrase: Give credit where credit is due. Until about a month ago, if someone were to look at the pacman code in the frugalware repos, it would appear that, based on comments, VMiklos created the entire thing and Judd, the one who created the original AND maintained it (alone, I might add) for something like 4 years was just a contributor. His name was stripped from files as if he didn't matter. Now, I've noticed that you distribute code directly from _your_ repo. Your repo indicates that it is "Frugalware's package manager" and there is not a single reference to "Arch" or "Archlinux" in there at all. If someone, who had never used Arch, came to Frugalware and looked through the code, it would appear that it was entirely created by you guys. It follows that "Frugalware's package manager" was created by Frugalware. My _only_ issue is that it seems, when looking at the repo, that there is no "partnership" here. From the outside it looks as though "this is frugalware's". Let's be clear - my issue is not with you, and not with your contributions, and not with anything you do. My issue is with the fact that we had to struggle to make it even appear that Judd (and therefore Arch) did anything with relation to this project, and now it appears as though there is still more-of-the-same. Now, let me explain the meaning of a "fork", since it seems to have a negative connotation to you guys.
From Wikipedia: In software engineering, a project fork or branch happens when a developer (or a group of them) takes code from a project and starts to develop independently of the rest. The term is also used more loosely to represent a similar branching of any work (for example, there are several forks of the English language Wikipedia).
With relation to other distros and software: Typically when one distributes a piece of software in "patched" form, the source is still pulled from the original location, and a patch is applied. In a vast majority of cases these patches are not functionality changes. You guys distribute source directly from your own repo, with functionality changes beyond the original codebase (things which were "develop[ed] independantly of the rest"). This is, by the wikipedia definition, a fork. Now. I am not trying to "force you" to fork, or any such nonsense. Forking is not a bad thing. It is not looked down upon (FreeBSD, NetBSD, DragonflyBSD, ...). I have no idea why there was such violent opposition to this. Forked projects typically cross-contribute. All I'm saying is that if there's not even a head nod to Archlinux, and no cross-collaboration, and many different code repositories all over the place, we're not really developing the same application anymore. I mean, right now, what happens if I removed the sha1sums code entirely because we don't use it? You would not remove anything and maintain a _different_ code base. Now, again. I need to reiterate that I am not emotional about this in the least. I am a bit saddened by the fact that it took so much hardship to get a slight acknowledgment for Judd and Arch in general, yes. But that is beside the point. The original email began in a hostile manner, and that is unnecessary.