In reply to Bob Tanner: > That's dissappointing. Why'd you open source it in the first > place, if you don't want other to contribute to the code base? > [...] > What really is irritating is that you do not seem to "get" open > source development. In all the other project I code for there is > always a clash of ego. Then lots of discussion, compromises, and > finally a solution that acceptable to the developers and (usually) > very good for the community. And I have heard opensource also means that people inform the community before changing other people's work. Maybe I didn't get it indeed... > Forking of the code can be good and bad. [...] > In crossfire's case 1 project will stagnate. > Bottom line AV, your fork hurts the -community-, IMHO. I enjoy working in a community as long as I feel treated in a fair way. > I've seen you do this 2 times now. If it's not your way, then > you storm off and fork the code and start a new project, instead > of trying to work with the community. Your wrong, I didn't do that before. I didn't meet anyone I couldn't get along with, before. > My intention with the editor was to make it easier to build, > package and deploy under linux. I never intended to take over > the development or design of the project. > [...] > I'd like to work with you to integrate your changes into the > main cvs repository and change whatever you want to keep the > project together. That's a very kind offer. If I had the old package name, source in "/CFEditor" and the former indenting style - I could easily merge my stuff in cvs and abandon the forked version. Andreas V. PS.: By "former indenting style" I mean this: if (expression) { statement; statement; } on cvs currently, most files contain this: if (expression) { statement; statement; }