<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Dirk Eddelbuettel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:edd@debian.org">edd@debian.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
There are repeated claims concerning a "Rcpp fork". Let's address both terms<br>
in turn.<br>
<br>
i) Rcpp was used in November 2008 as the name for a re-launch of a package<br>
which had seen releases on CRAN in 2005/2006 during which it was also<br>
renamed to RcppTemplate. Hence no package of name Rcpp had existed for<br>
years; the package's own author had moved on to anther name (RcppTemplate<br>
as it were). As such, no other package conflicted with the name.<br>
<br>
To my knowledge, there is no 'namespace reservation into eternity' for<br>
project names their very authors have liberated. If I missed a precedent,<br>
I would appreciate a pointer.<br>
<br>
We still use the name Rcpp today (in what is an almost entirely rewritten<br>
package with vastly expanded functionality) as it is useful in<br>
communicating the basic purpose: integrating R and C++.<br>
<br>
ii) The usage of "fork" is simply wrong. As running 'dict fork' on my Unix<br>
machine shows (among many other entries covering anything from the eating<br>
utensil to the system call):<br>
<br>
fork In the open-source community, a fork is what occurs when two (or<br>
more) versions of a software package's source code are being developed<br>
in parallel which once shared a common code base, and these multiple<br>
versions of the source code have irreconcilable differences between<br>
them. This should not be confused with a development branch, which may<br>
later be folded back into the original source code base. Nor should it<br>
be confused with what happens when a new distribution of Linux or some<br>
other distribution is created, because that largely assembles pieces<br>
than can and will be used in other distributions without conflict.<br>
<br>
Forking is uncommon; in fact, it is so uncommon that individual<br>
instances loom large in hacker folklore. Notable in this class were the<br>
<a href="http://www.xemacs.org/About/XEmacsVsGNUemacs.html" target="_blank">http://www.xemacs.org/About/XEmacsVsGNUemacs.html</a> (Emacs/XEmacs fork),<br>
the GCC/EGCS fork (later healed by a merger) and the forks among the<br>
FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD operating systems.<br>
<br>
Note the "when two (or more) versions of a software package's source code<br>
are being developed in parallel".<br>
<br>
Ergo, a "fork" would have required another living project with on-going<br>
development. But the code previously known at Rcpp/RcppTemplate was<br>
anything but "living", this can easily be verified by looking at the<br>
(preferably time-sorted) directory at CRAN (see link [1] below).<br>
<br>
So let's please stop calling this a "fork" of Rcpp. The Rcpp / RcppTemplate<br>
project was not live in late 2008; we changed that and started a relaunch<br>
under the (unused !!) name Rcpp which now, a good two years later, looks<br>
pretty healthy with four contributor and growing use within the R community.<br>
Rcpp has been almost completely rewritten and enhanced, but I fail to see the<br>
bitterness of its original author. There could be some pride in seeing ideas<br>
re-used. But to each their own.<br>
<br>
Lastly, for the associated 'remove my name' request: I have emails from 2008<br>
requesting this (which I accomodated), I also have emails from 2009 that<br>
requested the reversal (also accomodated). This is getting old.<br></blockquote><div><br>OK, since you are so accomodating, then please remove all reference to<br>my name from Rcpp as I do not want to be subject to arbitrary revisions of<br>
my status. I may not have the right to say how my prior work will be used,<br>but I think I have the right to ask that my name not be used in the way<br>it is used in the recent update.<br><br>On the "fork" question, in November of 2009 you were maintaining<br>
an old version of my software for your own purposes because I did<br>not have time to contribute updates to CRAN. The changes that<br>you made were minimal (as a diff would show). GPL permits you <br>to do this. Whether you call this a fork or not is a language issue.<br>
<br>In November of 2009 I released an update with many improvements<br>including object mapping support that was missing from my old<br>software and from the version that you were maintaining. I asked<br>you to remove the version you were maintaining so there would<br>
be only one Rcpp library, and you refused, invited Romain to<br>join the project, and added many of the features that I had just<br>released. Thus the real "fork" occured in November 2009.<br><br>Dominick<br><br>
</div></div><br>