1

Specifically in this case, I am tempted to ask a question regarding any continuing (non-supported by Canonical ) development of Unity (following this), largely with regard to licenses, source code and other efforts which could perhaps make this a more community driven effort.

I would obviously avoid trying to make it a programming question (don't need to ;-) ), but would it be too broad or not accepted in another way?

3
  • If you think there's a userbase, there's nothing stopping you. I do wonder what exactly one could ask about continuing to develop against the Unity codebase, but I don't see a reason to close it based on general questions that come to mind which aren't bugs. In that vein though, I can't think of a lot of good questions. Conversely, "I agree with the spirit of the question" has halted closevotes before – RobotHumans May 29 '17 at 14:07
  • 3
    @RobotHumans I think (please correct me if I'm wrong, Wilf) that the question is more about whether any non-Canonical continuation of unity would be on topic here rather than about any specific issues encountered while developing such a continuation. – terdon May 29 '17 at 14:12
  • If that's the question and not 100 other questions, I'm totally and completely on board with the question. – RobotHumans May 29 '17 at 14:17
3

I suppose it depends on what you're asking really. If @terdon is correct and it's as simple as a non-canonical maintained Unity question, I would consider it on-topic... that's no different than someone saying "How do I install emacs?".

The problem we generally run in to is that the camel nose of bugs or programming questions tends to get under the edge of the tent.

Generally I like the idea, but I do see bug questions getting close vote hammers and people getting upset if it becomes a thing.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .