2016-02-21 18:18 GMT-03:00 IOhannes m zmölnig <zmoelnig@iem.at>
this is about the worst possible outcome of the entire discussion.
 
Agreed

There's nothing stating that all those objects need to be in the one-and-only library named "cyclone".

Yep, but there's some sense it'd be a good spot and nothing says they shouldn't be in it too... 
 
having two libraries with similar tasks and similar (but distinguishable) names could be a win for everybody.

Maybe more like virtually the same tasks. the new could include the old with updates (instead of just some separated objects) to keep related objects together (here's pong, but if you want pong~ from max 4.6 get that other library). Or... here's pong~ updated to Max 7, but there's and old library with pong~ max 4.6. The more you look at it, it's just weird. 

I hoped for a joint venture on the same project. I honestly think a fork like that seemed like a last resource deal, a very drastic measure. "Hey, this is a different name, but it's the same as that other one with a little extra updates". I also agree with the reasoning of Ivica, who said.
 
2016-02-20 14:04 GMT-02:00 Ivica Ico Bukvic <ico@vt.edu>:
The confusion one will have to deal with by creating cyclone/prepend vs. <some-other-lib>/pong is pointless at best.  

Well, one way or another, this seems to be the outcome and I'm also deeply sorry for it too.

But hey, there are others willing to help on this project, we could talk about the future instead of what could've been.

cheers