no, not if the revolutionary code is never accepted back into the main branch. if it isn't merged back in, it *isn't* part of the product and release; it remains a branch, or maybe gets forked into a completely separate product.
Revolutionary code can become the main branch. Catalina became Tomcat 4.
vetoed never makes it into a release. at least it had better not. it might end up in a branch or fork where it hasn't been vetoed, but that would be a different product with its own release.
The key question here - if there truly is a fork, not just of the codebase but of the community, which one gets to keep the name?
no again. vetoed code never makes it into a release. what you are describing is a pathological situation. solutions to it include the majority 'routing around' by forking a revolutionary branch and taking the name with it, and executive decision by some authority (for which there are currently no guidelines).
Pathological? It happens. More frequently than you might expect. I'll be more than glad to share specifics, but some people seem squeamish about discussing such things in public.
again, pathological. if things get to this point, the pmc/chair should take corrective/punitive action. commit access is a privilege, not a right; such behaviour as you describe is an abuse of that privilege.
Forks happen. Two people with different visions, neither provably wrong, wishing to explore the consequences of a given set of design choices. Generally what occurs is one dies of natural causes. In other cases, a merge occurs as the ultimately it becomes possible to objectively determine if some of the promised benefits are fact or fantasy.
- Sam Ruby
