Philip Kaludercic <philipk@posteo.net> writes:

> Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> I dom't think that is necessarily so bad.
>>
>> It is: look at XEmacs, and the waste it led to.
>
> I think we have to distinguish between a diverging fork like XEmacs and
> a "parallel" fork, that aims to preserve mutual compatibility.  In the
> former case, the two projects will find it more and more difficult over
> time to share code, while in the latter is just a question of
> organisation and administration, that doesn't matter that much to the
> user.

It means that the parallel fork has to be rebased everytime a change is
made and that people working on the original codebase do not see whether
their change breaks the parallel fork.

That creates additional work that does not exist at all if the codebases
are merged.

Just think of it like a long-running pull-request. In my experience
these always bitrot.

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein,
ohne es zu merken.
draketo.de