[sugar] Relationships w/ upstream.
Mon Jul 7 17:29:05 EDT 2008
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 6:17 PM, C. Scott Ananian <cscott at laptop.org> wrote:
> I think we're all agreed that even small forks have large long-term
> costs, and we'd prefer to avoid them where at all possible -- which we
> all agree seems to be the case at present.
Here I disagree - small and medium sized forks can be low cost, and
highly dynamic, specially when you are using a merge-friendly SCM
The last 6 years of my life have been working with projects that ran
ahead of their upstreams -- mostly moodle -- and things were horribly
painful before git. Once git was usable, it just became a matter of a
bit of discipline.
- Long term forks are death, short term forks are opportunity.
- Sugar isn't a forking problem :-) as olpc team and sugar team
- I think we are overstressing about a bunch of strings. People
rightly say that forks are costly and nightmarish, but they are
talking about a few thousand patches, and deltas of 10K lines, that
when merged resulted in a few hundred gnarly conflicts. Strings you
say? I landed 130 patches worth 4K lines of diff between 1.8 and 1.9
of moodle, rewriting one of the core libs completely :-)
martin.langhoff at gmail.com
martin at laptop.org -- School Server Architect
- ask interesting questions
- don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
More information about the Sugar-devel