Hi, On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 4:45 AM, Joachim Breitner wrote:

Great. Would it be possible for you two to agree on a mode that allows Kiwamu to develop in his pace, but still avoid having a proper fork of jhc pushed to distros and users? Something like: Kiwamu hacks away happily on the ajhc repo and people interested in the very latest state can pull from there, but ajhc releases get (if there are no technical issues) merged into jhc, and jhc is the version that regular users should use (and distributions should package).

I think good, because I maintain jhs as Debian package already. http://ftp-master.debian.org/new/jhc_0.8.0~darcs20120314-1.html Maintaining Ajhc Debian package is bad idea, if jhc has the most functions had by Ajhc. How about below policy between jhc and Ajhc. 1. Jhc and Ajhc share same command name "jhc". 2. Jhc controls major version number. Example, jhc controls X, Y and Z in version "X.Y.Z". 3. Ajhc controls minor version number. Example, Ajhc controls only Q in version "X.Y.Z.Q". 4. Ajhc show below message with --version option. (A)jhc 0.8.0.1 (80aa12fb9b57622bba2f0e911d7ebc0c04ddb662) compiled by ghc-7.4 on a x86_64 running linux The policy is to keep minimum change between jhc and Ajhc. And I think that Ajhc having own command name confuses jhc user. Best regards, -- Kiwamu Okabe