From aeef439e83f054e8f899ce129db1ad7f3fc9b918 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: closer-claudio Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2026 15:13:54 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Profile: no claim that every fork change is one upstream would merge The opening paragraph said every change is one we would happily see merged back. Some changes align a fork with our own lint baseline or replace a library, and those are ours to carry, not upstream's to take. The paragraph now says what is true of every fork: upstream keeps the credit and the licence, and what differs is written down change by change; and names the changes that stay ours. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 Signed-off-by: closer-claudio --- profile/README.md | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/profile/README.md b/profile/README.md index c202b20c..a7e56057 100644 --- a/profile/README.md +++ b/profile/README.md @@ -5,7 +5,9 @@ Friendly forks of upstream projects. When an upstream project we depend on is unmaintained, slow to move, or simply missing something we need, we fork it here rather than vendoring a patch and forgetting about it. The fork stays honest about what it is: upstream keeps the credit, the licence stays -upstream's, and every change is one we would happily see merged back. +upstream's, and what differs from upstream is written down, change by change. Not every +change is upstream's to take: some align a fork with our own lint baseline or replace a +library, and those are ours to carry. **If you can get a fix upstream, do that first.** These forks exist because that was not possible or not timely — not because we think we own the code.