<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 21.09.2013 08:43, schrieb Felix
Homann:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAFz=ag7S_k7p5YoT_9oZhH1LaB4V-O847ApFbmwAtNwwFM7iJA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr"><br>
Am 21.09.2013 08:10 schrieb "hermann meyer" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:brummer-@web.de">brummer-@web.de</a>>:<br>
><br>
> Ralf, please stop this. You seems to have no Idea about
what the blame is here. Read here, <br>
> Why, When, and How to Fork an Open Source Project<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://jamesdixon.wordpress.com/forking-protocol-why-when-and-how-to-fork-an-open-source-project/">http://jamesdixon.wordpress.com/forking-protocol-why-when-and-how-to-fork-an-open-source-project/</a><br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">As I mentioned above this is an issue with
namespaces: A 'fork' on github usually isn't the kind of fork
Dixon is writing about. A 'fork' on github most of the times is
just what would have been called a working tree or a personal
tree everywhere else. To give the example again: There are
currently 3646 'forks' of Linus Torvalds' kernel tree. Do you
think they are misbehaving?</p>
<p dir="ltr">(BTW, I strongly feel that github would have better
chosen the phrase "clone me on github" instead of "fork me...")</p>
</blockquote>
There is a big difference in a initial push, or a push on the fork
button. If you push the fork button, the original maintainer can
note that you have fork it, and could handle it as pull request. If
you do a initial push, the original maintainer didn't know about
it. <br>
</body>
</html>