![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
I am suggesting this page be wikified
Samba vs. Samba TNG - am I right in thinking TNG was blessed as Samba 3? And would that be an internal fork, or an external fork being blessed? -
David Gerard 13:23, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
This article does not do justice to the sort of intentional forking that goes on regularly in both free and proprietary software projects; e.g., FreeBSD-CURRENT vs. FreeBSD-STABLE, Linux 2.x vs. Linux 2.(x+1), Cisco IOS 12.0 versus 12.0S versus 12.0T versus 12.1 versus 12.1S versus 12.1T versus 12.1B versus 12.2{,S,T,B} versus 12.3 ad nauseam. 18.24.0.120 05:05, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
From an article Code Forking, which I've redirected to Fork (software)"
Code forking is what occurs when code is taken by two different developers and developed independantly. The individual builds of the software constitute the forks which often do not share improvements and other changes made to other forks of the software.
Examples of this include the original Emule software ( http://emule-project.net ) and Emule Plus ( http://emuleplus.sourceforge.net/ ), which started as a mod of Emule and later stopped reintroducing their own updates into the official client. Instead they formed their own client and created a code fork.
(edit by article author): I went to the page that sent me to the blank "code forking" page and redirected the link to fork (software). It was under Software hoarding. I'm too lazy to add my meager example in the face of what's already in this article.
Is the forking of certain web syndication standards (e.g. RSS 0.9/1.0 vs. RSS 0.9x/2.0) within the scope of this article? A-giau 21:55, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Firefox has reached 1.0. Should it be declared the official Mozilla browser, then? -- Kizor 03:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Is this really still a stub? Stillnotelf 20:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Could someone knowledgeable explain the rather oblique reference to Wikipedia forks? Natcolley 20:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
No doubt this phenomenon exists much more broadly than just computing/software development. Could we not then, make mentions of this in art, philosophy, etc...or even create a new page on this topic? ~ Dpr 08:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Right off the top, I can say that what people think of as 'the' Baptist church is nothing but an ongoing series of forks. The Civil War split the Northern (now American) Baptists from the Southern. Of course black people had their own 'convention', which itself has repeatedly fractured. There are dozens if not hundreds of independent Baptist conventions out there. I doubt anybody really knows the number. Although generally speaking some are more 'liberal' than others, most of these church splits were more about ego, personality and power than theology. Can the same be said of the software development community? If so, then perhaps 'forking' should be filed under Psychology :-). Natcolley 20:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
That would be a schism (religion), and well spotted! It's exactly the right word - David Gerard ( talk) 17:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
There is now (created) on Wikibooks a forking policy, it a approved policy but it still under debate Wikibooks:C++
Wikibook would be more correctly forking eBooks or Library Science Database than actually other people trying to copy him, which is totally not true and violating its own original research policies. I suspect Wikipedia is scandalous in deletion since a lot of AfD, TfD, and CfD have no backups and logs (which is irresponsible for security measures) and claims ownership of its Sister Projects and evade legal problems such as Fair Use Rationale policies probably, which doesn't even exists in the legal system. -- 75.154.186.241 ( talk) 10:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I've seen Ubuntu referred to as a "spoon" of Debian. What does this pun mean? Twinxor t 06:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
In passing, I noticed this page contains a self-reference to Wikipedia in the leader text. Could someone with a better, external example, change this per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references? Rob Church Talk | FAD 10:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I've cut the page up into sections. Do any more likely sections leap out to anyone's eyes? Also, this article could do with some solid referencing - David Gerard 01:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is heavily biased to Open Source and not enough information on true Proprietary software forking. Nor is there any information on approaches to forking Proprietary software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kit105 ( talk • contribs) 03:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like the users editing this article to help end the edit-war between a few users (myself included) on the HoverRace article. HoverRace was a shareware game originally designed/coded by GrokkSoft (Richard Langlois) in 1995/1996. Recently, Mr. Langlois released the source code to the last legally released version of HoverRace (1.01). GrokkSoft.com was the official website for HoverRace until it was abandoned. Once Langlois released the source code, HR.com began working on it to get it to compile, and recently to make what they consider improvements (most of which were not sanctioned or planned by Langlois). Once Langlois released the source code, he basically stopped bothering with the people at HR.com, except to remove the expiry from the source code license.
Now, HR.com are claiming that their fork of the original game is not a fork at all, but the official/original version.
Pleas note: HoverRace.com was never, and still is not the official website for HoverRace. It started in 1996 as a fan-site by a registered user of the game.
I'm thinking that I'm not wrong on this, but I could be. Regardless of whether I am right or wrong, I'd like for some of you to explain whether or not HoverRace.com's "version" of HoverRace is a fork or not on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development), please... 64.230.16.234 ( talk) 20:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I have seen this term on a few wiki articles and it seems worth defining in this article, so that it can be wikilinked. Anyone want to take a four-tined stab at adding this? :) DMahalko ( talk) 06:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I've culled most of these as not particularly notable. This is a blatant subjective judgement call on my part, but it was becoming a list of "every fork ever". Perhaps that could be broken out into a list article. I've left in forks that are particularly notable and that aren't already mentioned in the body text - David Gerard ( talk) 16:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
This appears to be entirely spurious. Does anyone have any actual cite that the term "fork" came from POSIX? There must be a first use somewhere - David Gerard ( talk) 16:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I propose Repository clone be merged to Fork (software development). The concepts of distributed VCS that apply to clone are the same as the ones in fork, and by cloning you are in effect forking the project with the intent of merging it back later. Jonatanschroeder ( talk) 21:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the text relating this to a schism. It is already bad people see software as some kind of "religion" ("religion" used "in the bad sense", in the sense of "my religion is better than your religion". I certainly agree there are some similar aspects, but I think a better analogy would be that of a sub-set of a political party splitting to form a new one. Either way, the thing about the schism is unsourced. -- SF007 ( talk) 08:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Presumably, the fork system call in Unix predates using the term in software development. This must have been in the mind of whoever coined the term. Does anyone have any thoughts/material on this relationship and whether it should be mentioned in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erh2103 ( talk • contribs) 06:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I just changed this:
The cited Ritchie paper doesn't make this claim of originality or influence, it just describes the fork system call in a technical sense. The second reference doesn't claim that "fork" was not in use prior to 1969 and the invention of Unix, and it shouldn't, because the fork–join model of parallelism (which also features forking processes) predates it.
Then the Allman reference:
Sure Allman calls this "forking" (exactly once, and in quotes). But there's no sign this was the first use of "fork" in this sense, so that claim appears to be OR. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 11:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fork (software development). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
A fork as an eating utensil has one steel and at least two prongs. I guess that is the etymology of the concept. Rbakels ( talk) 09:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
I am suggesting this page be wikified
Samba vs. Samba TNG - am I right in thinking TNG was blessed as Samba 3? And would that be an internal fork, or an external fork being blessed? -
David Gerard 13:23, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
This article does not do justice to the sort of intentional forking that goes on regularly in both free and proprietary software projects; e.g., FreeBSD-CURRENT vs. FreeBSD-STABLE, Linux 2.x vs. Linux 2.(x+1), Cisco IOS 12.0 versus 12.0S versus 12.0T versus 12.1 versus 12.1S versus 12.1T versus 12.1B versus 12.2{,S,T,B} versus 12.3 ad nauseam. 18.24.0.120 05:05, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
From an article Code Forking, which I've redirected to Fork (software)"
Code forking is what occurs when code is taken by two different developers and developed independantly. The individual builds of the software constitute the forks which often do not share improvements and other changes made to other forks of the software.
Examples of this include the original Emule software ( http://emule-project.net ) and Emule Plus ( http://emuleplus.sourceforge.net/ ), which started as a mod of Emule and later stopped reintroducing their own updates into the official client. Instead they formed their own client and created a code fork.
(edit by article author): I went to the page that sent me to the blank "code forking" page and redirected the link to fork (software). It was under Software hoarding. I'm too lazy to add my meager example in the face of what's already in this article.
Is the forking of certain web syndication standards (e.g. RSS 0.9/1.0 vs. RSS 0.9x/2.0) within the scope of this article? A-giau 21:55, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Firefox has reached 1.0. Should it be declared the official Mozilla browser, then? -- Kizor 03:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Is this really still a stub? Stillnotelf 20:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Could someone knowledgeable explain the rather oblique reference to Wikipedia forks? Natcolley 20:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
No doubt this phenomenon exists much more broadly than just computing/software development. Could we not then, make mentions of this in art, philosophy, etc...or even create a new page on this topic? ~ Dpr 08:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Right off the top, I can say that what people think of as 'the' Baptist church is nothing but an ongoing series of forks. The Civil War split the Northern (now American) Baptists from the Southern. Of course black people had their own 'convention', which itself has repeatedly fractured. There are dozens if not hundreds of independent Baptist conventions out there. I doubt anybody really knows the number. Although generally speaking some are more 'liberal' than others, most of these church splits were more about ego, personality and power than theology. Can the same be said of the software development community? If so, then perhaps 'forking' should be filed under Psychology :-). Natcolley 20:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
That would be a schism (religion), and well spotted! It's exactly the right word - David Gerard ( talk) 17:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
There is now (created) on Wikibooks a forking policy, it a approved policy but it still under debate Wikibooks:C++
Wikibook would be more correctly forking eBooks or Library Science Database than actually other people trying to copy him, which is totally not true and violating its own original research policies. I suspect Wikipedia is scandalous in deletion since a lot of AfD, TfD, and CfD have no backups and logs (which is irresponsible for security measures) and claims ownership of its Sister Projects and evade legal problems such as Fair Use Rationale policies probably, which doesn't even exists in the legal system. -- 75.154.186.241 ( talk) 10:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
I've seen Ubuntu referred to as a "spoon" of Debian. What does this pun mean? Twinxor t 06:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
In passing, I noticed this page contains a self-reference to Wikipedia in the leader text. Could someone with a better, external example, change this per Wikipedia:Avoid self-references? Rob Church Talk | FAD 10:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I've cut the page up into sections. Do any more likely sections leap out to anyone's eyes? Also, this article could do with some solid referencing - David Gerard 01:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is heavily biased to Open Source and not enough information on true Proprietary software forking. Nor is there any information on approaches to forking Proprietary software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kit105 ( talk • contribs) 03:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like the users editing this article to help end the edit-war between a few users (myself included) on the HoverRace article. HoverRace was a shareware game originally designed/coded by GrokkSoft (Richard Langlois) in 1995/1996. Recently, Mr. Langlois released the source code to the last legally released version of HoverRace (1.01). GrokkSoft.com was the official website for HoverRace until it was abandoned. Once Langlois released the source code, HR.com began working on it to get it to compile, and recently to make what they consider improvements (most of which were not sanctioned or planned by Langlois). Once Langlois released the source code, he basically stopped bothering with the people at HR.com, except to remove the expiry from the source code license.
Now, HR.com are claiming that their fork of the original game is not a fork at all, but the official/original version.
Pleas note: HoverRace.com was never, and still is not the official website for HoverRace. It started in 1996 as a fan-site by a registered user of the game.
I'm thinking that I'm not wrong on this, but I could be. Regardless of whether I am right or wrong, I'd like for some of you to explain whether or not HoverRace.com's "version" of HoverRace is a fork or not on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development), please... 64.230.16.234 ( talk) 20:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I have seen this term on a few wiki articles and it seems worth defining in this article, so that it can be wikilinked. Anyone want to take a four-tined stab at adding this? :) DMahalko ( talk) 06:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I've culled most of these as not particularly notable. This is a blatant subjective judgement call on my part, but it was becoming a list of "every fork ever". Perhaps that could be broken out into a list article. I've left in forks that are particularly notable and that aren't already mentioned in the body text - David Gerard ( talk) 16:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
This appears to be entirely spurious. Does anyone have any actual cite that the term "fork" came from POSIX? There must be a first use somewhere - David Gerard ( talk) 16:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I propose Repository clone be merged to Fork (software development). The concepts of distributed VCS that apply to clone are the same as the ones in fork, and by cloning you are in effect forking the project with the intent of merging it back later. Jonatanschroeder ( talk) 21:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the text relating this to a schism. It is already bad people see software as some kind of "religion" ("religion" used "in the bad sense", in the sense of "my religion is better than your religion". I certainly agree there are some similar aspects, but I think a better analogy would be that of a sub-set of a political party splitting to form a new one. Either way, the thing about the schism is unsourced. -- SF007 ( talk) 08:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Presumably, the fork system call in Unix predates using the term in software development. This must have been in the mind of whoever coined the term. Does anyone have any thoughts/material on this relationship and whether it should be mentioned in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erh2103 ( talk • contribs) 06:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I just changed this:
The cited Ritchie paper doesn't make this claim of originality or influence, it just describes the fork system call in a technical sense. The second reference doesn't claim that "fork" was not in use prior to 1969 and the invention of Unix, and it shouldn't, because the fork–join model of parallelism (which also features forking processes) predates it.
Then the Allman reference:
Sure Allman calls this "forking" (exactly once, and in quotes). But there's no sign this was the first use of "fork" in this sense, so that claim appears to be OR. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 11:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fork (software development). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
A fork as an eating utensil has one steel and at least two prongs. I guess that is the etymology of the concept. Rbakels ( talk) 09:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)