[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    Re: Last attempt at reconciliation
From:       Ingo =?iso-8859-1?q?Kl=F6cker?= <kloecker () kde ! org>
Date:       2002-09-21 12:45:37
[Download RAW message or body]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 19 September 2002 23:30, Neil Stevens wrote:
> I'll see your anecdote and raise you one:
>
> emacs vs xemacs - two forks each thriving today.
>
> quanta vs quanta - Despite 3 of 4 developers leaving behind the GPL
> version for TheKompany, Quanta continues today, if delayed.

The difference between these examples and KMail is that except for one 
small issue all KMail developers agree on the future of KMail. So there 
is obviously no reason for two different version of KMail.

> This is free software.  A fork can't take anything away from the
> original unless it takes manpower from the original.  In the case of
> make_it_cool KMail we have three developers who had not been major
> developers of KMail in a while, or ever.  HEAD KMail loses nothing,
> and won't be "killed" by this.

So you think it's better to develop two versions of KMail with 3-5 
developers each than to join our forces again after the release of KDE 
3.1?

Regards,
Ingo

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9jGn3GnR+RTDgudgRAtkFAJ41hyuGKiPRpEGetLiHhY4k4Um6LQCfa05h
sx9rhLbN+glNrcI4/rsvl4k=
=n6gF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
KMail Developers mailing list
kmail@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]