incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kalle Korhonen <>
Subject Re: Q. Forks without concensus?; A. anytime / depends / never without agreement
Date Mon, 09 Jan 2012 18:58:35 GMT
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Hyrum K Wright
<> wrote:
> I think the Trac community sees this as a zero-sum game: if people are
> contributing to Bloodhound, they *aren't* contributing to Trac.
> "Instead, we should try to convince the Bloodhound people that our
> philosophy is best, and they should just come over here."  Resolving
> such philosophical differences and technical goals is difficult at
> best, and I don't see it happening soon.  But that's okay, there isn't
> a globally optimal solution to issue tracking, and we can agree to
> experiment with different paths.
> But I've probably said too much already.  There isn't much more I can
> add here, and the last think I want to do at this point is prolong the
> agony of this discussion.

Where's the agony? I see the general discussion about forks without
consensus as very healthy, and I think it should continue to be
discussed till all voices are heard.

> [1] Indeed, I know of at least one private proprietary derivative of
> Trac, but since it's proprietary, nobody knows about it and nobody
> complains.  It's the fact that Bloodhound is proposed as open source
> which is causing the hullaballoo in the first place.

But dear Sir, I don't believe that to be true if I may say so. Had the
original proposal been worded as a derivative intended to keep Trac as
the foundation, rather than a take-over there wouldn't have been any
hullaballoo. I still don't understand why Bloodhound needs to start by
forking Trac, without a single line written yet. The architecture with
a small core and many plugins versus a complete installable package
are not contradicting in any way.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message