glibc fork ?

[Kevin Kofler]

Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> It doesn't matter what the PR is. But even if anyone believes this
> kool-aid and starts acting as if it's true (e.g. synching with Uli's
> glibc), they are going to end with Claws and Sylpheed eventually,
> unless they die off first.

Or they might actually win, like egcs did back in the day.

It's hard to predict the future of a fork, it might die except possibly for
a few crackpots keeping it alive (the only example I can think of is
GoneMe, but there are undoubtedly many other failed forks I never even
heard of), or it might win, with possibly a few crackpots keeping alive the
original project (as for XFree86 (*)), or the forks might diverge from each
other like Sylpheed vs. Claws or GNU Emacs vs. XEmacs.

But it's clear that the regularly-synced "fork" isn't a very stable
development relation and tends to degenerate into one of those 3 scenarios.

        Kevin Kofler

(*) though arguably XFree86 is the failed fork and the X.Org Consortium is
the legitimate successor of the original maintainer, but when you look at
the actual code flow, the latest X.Org X11 releases are clearly forked from
XFree86