Federico Barbieri wrote: > >> > >Ok, as I tried to express, I agree on having different implementations > >because of scalability and performance, but not on features. > > > In a perfect world of course. But during development implementing a > feature may get in others people way and this is bad. > Moreover some feature are really just experiments and you need to leave > some freedom for experimenting. > At last there are cases where you can implement the same feature in > different incompatible ways and it's very hard to chose on a technical > base. instead of forcing people in endless frustrating discussions just > let them go. Hopefully people will be wise, give up their pride and find > a compromise. > > Microforks are natural and quite productive if they take place with a > constructive attitude. > Of course, that's true - most time, microforks are required to keep the development running.
And I don't want to force anyone (even if I wanted it wouldn't work anyway). So I will see what's happening and try to help as best as I can. Carsten -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
