Re: now I know how grandparents feel

> Go for it.  What frustrates me the most about the discussions we've
> been having recently is that nobody is taking the time to really think
> through the solutions and understand all the ramifications.  Forking
> the project will force you to do that.  And I think you'll achieve a
> completely new perspective.  Or at the very least we'll be able to
> have constructive conversations! ;) I'm strongly in favor of this even
> for its educational value alone.

As a bystander in most of this, I have to say that this comment is kind of 
funny -- because it seems that it is your changes to the core which are done 
without understanding of the ramifications.  Things suddenly break and there 
is little to no explanation whatsoever of why they're gone or how to work 
around them.

No doubt about it -- if a fork occurs everyone will learn about "the other 
side" -- and that is not necessarily a bad thing.  It seems silly that we 
need to fork in order to get a stable release though, even though it's not a 
"final" release.  

I remember your discussions about how you wanted Nitrogen to be "the" 
framework for everything XWT to come.  I also, however, remember the call to 
stop Lithium work and that Nitrogen was right around the corner...  Things 
were looking amazing for a little while and then it seems like feature creep 
took over and the idea of a stable Nitrogen was suddenly a looooooong way 
off.

> Open source works because it simulates free, unconstrained evolution
> without bias-inducing path dependancies [1].  I encourage this sort of
> competition because it can only be a win-win situation in the end.

I agree.  It seems a little excessive, though.  Especially since it seems that 
all we want is a cut-release of Nitrogen so we can use it.  So what if the 
API changes somewhat with Oxygen?  That's how things go.  That's what 
happened with Lithium.  It's part of progress.

Regards,
Andrew.