I don't share that objection to forks; I don't find forks to be a problem. One can't do anything to change in the free software world, nor would I want it to change because changing that would mean losing the software freedom I value.
I don't share that objection to forks; I don't find forks to be a problem. One can't do anything to change in the free software world, nor would I want it to change because changing that would mean losing the software freedom I value.
I am not against the forks, but we also have examples like openwrt/lede split.
My perspective on this is only against splitting contributor base because of maintainer mismanagement.
Edit: in your emacs example, it is much more beneficial your changes (and a lot of others) pushed back to main project vs multiple emacs forks with minor improvements.
I've used lemacs (Lucid emacs) and xemacs, and now I use Aquamacs.
As I recall, Lucid forked emacs because they, a commercial company with an emacs-based IDE, wanted to push changes faster than the FSF, a small non-profit dependent on volunteer labor, could accept them.
This turned into xemacs. My feeling was that xemacs was much better then emacs-for-x.
I think Aquamacs has better Mac integration than stock GNU emacs.