That has arisen a few times here. Yes, they actually do actively discourage forking (to the point of threatening “excommunication” from the community).
That has arisen a few times here. Yes, they actually do actively discourage forking (to the point of threatening “excommunication” from the community).
There have been a couple of forks with different names, and nobody's been "excommunicated" or whatever. The forks haven't gotten much traction, but they're probably still out there.
Added: This comment is also not terribly friendly.
https://github.com/gdotdesign/elm-github-install/issues/62#i...
As it turned out, this is exactly what the OP in that thread did - he created https://www.mint-lang.com - which I think is a very positive development indeed!
https://discourse.elm-lang.org/t/clients-expressing-doubt-ab...
Added: This comment is also not terribly friendly.
https://github.com/gdotdesign/elm-github-install/issues/62#i...
I’d be fine forking it to pursue a personal project. I’d never do that for any critical business need.
• When you want to update to a new version of Elm, do git rebase and reapply the patch.
• Now your source tree and history is identical to upstream, plus one commit
Most likely the code restricting installing binaries from only one source isn’t changing a lot, so patch conflicts should not be too much of a hinderance