[Numpy-discussion] What is consensus anyway

Fernando Perez fperez.net@gmail....
Tue Apr 24 00:35:41 CDT 2012

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Stéfan van der Walt <stefan@sun.ac.za> wrote:
> If you are referring to the traditional concept of a fork, and not to
> the type we frequently make on GitHub, then I'm surprised that no one
> has objected already.  What would a fork solve? To paraphrase the
> regexp saying: after forking, we'll simply have two problems.

I concur with you here: github 'forks', yes, as many as possible!
Hopefully every one of those will produce one or more PRs :)  But a
fork in the sense of a divergent parallel project?  I think that would
only be indicative of a complete failure to find a way to make
progress here, and I doubt we're anywhere near that state.

That forks are *possible* is indeed a valuable and important option in
open source software, because it means that a truly dysfunctional
original project team/direction can't hold a community hostage
forever.  But that doesn't mean that full-blown forks should be
considered lightly, as they also carry enormous costs.

I see absolutely nothing in the current scenario to even remotely
consider that a full-blown fork would be a good idea, and I hope I'm
right.  It seems to me we're making progress on problems that led to
real difficulties last year, but from multiple parties I see signs
that give me reason to be optimistic that the project is getting
better, not worse.



More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list