[svlug] simpleKDE...

[Sameer Verma]

Joe Buck wrote:

>On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 04:56:27PM -0700, Sameer Verma wrote:
>  
>
>>Don Marti wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>begin Sameer Verma quotation of Wed, Oct 19, 2005 at 11:58:33PM -0700:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>I came across simpleKDE a little while ago. It is a fork of KDE.
>>>>http://www.simplekde.org/
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Maybe not "fork"...
>>>
>>>SimpleKDE set to be an official part of KDE
>>>http://www.simplekde.org/node/15
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Well, technically it is a fork, right? Even if the intentions are noble 
>>enough that they will merge things back into the project, the fact that 
>>they are splitting away from the original KDE would make it a fork.
>>    
>>
>
>The proper term in a case like this is "branch"; many projects spin off
>experimental development branches all the time, with the intent of later
>remerging.
>
>  
>
Well, a KDE branch would really be the 3.1 or 3.2 etc. as is listed at
http://websvn.kde.org/branches/KDE/

I realize I am being nit-picky, but the fact that you (somebody) can
package a simplified version of KDE with your own selection of Linux
Kernel and a collection of GNU tools etc. , makes me wonder if simpleKDE
is really a fork or a branch. I would say its neither.

>You are correct that they say "fork", but the usual implication of "fork"
>is a permanent split, or at least that a future re-merge would be a
>complicated thing.
>  
>
Regardless of the term used (fork or branch), this could become
complicated. Perhaps this kind of an activity needs a new(er) label?

Sameer

-- 
Dr. Sameer Verma, Ph.D.
Asst. Professor of Information Systems
San Francisco State University
San Francisco CA 94132 USA
http://verma.sfsu.edu/
http://opensource.sfsu.edu/