On Mon, 16 Jun 2025, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
[repeated falacies snipped] > > How is messing with a hobbyist project "harmful" in any way? That makes > no sense. > If your port was a pure hobbyist project, you would never have brought your complaint to the upstream mailing lists, where developers have to work with ALL interested parties and make the necessary compromises. But, as usual, you're trying to have it both ways. You pretend that wiping wiping your slate clean and starting over doesn't impact anyone else. But then you complain when the upstream projects don't care to invest effort into your scheme. The way to find a compromise is to build the thing you need, and then, if any of it is found to be useful upstream, send patches! That's how this process has always worked, has it not? Moreover, to the extent that those patches get merged, we will have the beginnings of a second ABI with a second tuple. To the extend that those patches get rejected, you will have a fork on your hands. So, some upstream developers will have to support both ABIs (for them, you've just created work). Other developers will have to choose between either one (for them, you've just make collaboration more difficult). This is a lose/lose proposition. And if you think I'm wrong about that, please just send patches and demonstrate why.
