On Tuesday 10 September 2002 19:44, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Tuesday 10 September 2002 11:33, Marc Mutz wrote:
> > Unfortunately, judging form the programme that Don wants to implement in
> > the time before 3.1, when HEAD is open again, the two branches will
> > have diverted to very drastically, that any attempt at backporting
> > selected stuff will probably be more work than developing it for HEAD
> > itself.
(...)
> > I catch myself thinking that this is what is intended... :-(

> probably not for the intent of making porting bug fixes hard, but for the
> intent of making improvements that those working in the branch see as
> needed. in other words, it would be a side effect rather than an intended
> primary effect.

So how do you interpret the following statement then:

On Tuesday 10 September 2002 12:31, Don Sanders wrote:

> Here is a list of changes I'm currently working on in make_it_cool
(...)
> I really want to do this as if we fork this gives us a legitimate
> different goal from KMail rather than just competing directly with
> KMail.
(...)
> Don.

Am I the only one understanding this the way that Don would _like_
to 'have to' fork?

Karl-Heinz
_______________________________________________
KMail Developers mailing list
kmail@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail