Editing Fork (software development) (section)

== Etymology ==
The word ''fork'' has been used to mean "to divide in branches, go separate ways" as early as the 14th century.<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fork Entry 'fork' in Online Etymology Dictionary] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120525165727/http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fork |date=25 May 2012 }}</ref>

In the context of software development, ''fork'' was used in the sense of creating a revision control '''branch''' by [[Eric Allman]] as early as 1980, in the context of [[Source Code Control System]]:<ref>Allman, Eric. [http://sccs.sourceforge.net/man/sccs.me.html "An Introduction to the Source Code Control System."] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141106144859/http://sccs.sourceforge.net/man/sccs.me.html |date=6 November 2014 }} Project Ingres, University of California at Berkeley, 1980.</ref>

{{quotation|Creating a branch "forks off" a version of the program.}}

The term was in use on [[Usenet]] by 1983 for the process of creating a subgroup to move topics of discussion to.<ref>[https://groups.google.com/group/net.misc/browse_thread/thread/b0e9f8531558b7e9/1cc726d9e9e05ebd?q=fork#1cc726d9e9e05ebd Can somebody fork off a "net.philosophy"?] ([[John Gilmore (activist)|John Gilmore]], net.misc, 18 January 1983)</ref>

Although ''fork'' is not known to have been used in the sense of a community schism during the origins of Lucid Emacs (now [[XEmacs]]) (1991) or the [[Berkeley Software Distribution|Berkeley Software Distributions]] (BSDs) (1993–1994), [[Russ Nelson]] used the term ''shattering'' in this sense in 1993 (attributing it to [[John Gilmore (activist)|John Gilmore]]).<ref>[https://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/browse_thread/thread/1bba70b8f8676c43/309504a5a51dd0f0 Shattering&nbsp;— good or bad?] (Russell Nelson, gnu.misc.discuss, 1 October 1993)</ref> In 1995, ''fork'' was used to describe the XEmacs split,<ref>[https://groups.google.com/group/cu.cs.macl.info/browse_thread/thread/ed9e5ff9cb21c359/4ce930d2fd1271eb?q=%22fork+of%22+xemacs#4ce930d2fd1271eb Re: Hey Franz: 32K Windows SUCK!!!!!] (Bill Dubuque, cu.cs.macl.info, 21 September 1995)</ref> and was an understood usage in the [[GNU]] Project by 1996.<ref>[https://groups.google.com/group/gnu.misc.discuss/browse_thread/thread/5d7529d865d4d9ca/69ebc4771f32bc45?q=fork+xemacs&utoken=jCqifzMAAABlYGNE0Z8-NzB8d_a6gkmMuNtzuV4zLfLK8bEgnt4z8g27cB9GA0FI9e6hHUM__C_J8dUPGZeQNP0WkVA49NN0 Lignux?] (Marcus G. Daniels, gnu.misc.discuss, 7 June 1996)</ref>

The word is used similarly for the [[Fork (system call)|fork() system call]] which causes a running [[Process (computing)|process]] to split in two {{endash}} typically, to allow them to perform different tasks in parallel.<ref>"The term fork is derived from the POSIX standard for operating systems: the system call used so that a process generates a copy of itself is called fork()." {{cite conference|url=http://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/paper_0.pdf|title=A Comprehensive Study of Software Forks: Dates, Reasons and Outcomes|first1=Gregorio|last1=Robles|first2=Jesús M.|last2=González-Barahona|conference=OSS 2012 The Eighth International Conference on Open Source Systems|year=2012|access-date=20 October 2012|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131202221721/http://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/paper_0.pdf|archive-date=2 December 2013|doi=10.1007/978-3-642-33442-9_1|doi-access=free}}</ref>