Subject: Re: Non-committers can't keep authenticated forks updated

From: Tomas Volf <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2025 19:59:17 +0100

Liliana Marie Prikler <[email-masked]> writes:

>> All of these things discussed in this thread are technically
>> possible.  But I think that we all agree that the friction involved,
>> compared to just using my own fork with the patch applied, is much
>> larger, at least in my opinion.
> Yes, we can agree that this is your opinion.  We can even agree that
> there is more friction, but I'm not sure whether we agree on the value
> of "much".  But honestly speaking, the friction with contributing to
> upstream is much more a social one (too few people to review) than a
> technical one, and soft forks are a band aid that will likely burn you
> out even sooner the more you commit to them.

I do not know what the future holds, but introduction of my soft-fork is
form Fri Sep 15 16:18:25 2023 +0200, and I am of the opinion that it
saved me more work that is has cost me over the time.  But yes, as you
stated, this is just my opinion.

Tomas

-- 
There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.