One of those two is my fork and yes I did it to fix something, but edandersen's point was more geared towards a real fork (i.e. something that takes the project into a different direction) instead of the fork that GitHub requires to send a PR.
I agree with him, we already have a bunch of popular .NET build tools other than MSBuild like FAKE, basing one off of MSBuild doesn't seem to add a lot of value imho.
People committing to gcc probably have workflows that predate github. I think there are many "forks" that are just done as fixes on a local machine then sent directly as a patch.
Sorry, I wasn't talking about forks the github term, I was referring to forking the project. It's useful to have open source available just for maintenance.
I agree with him, we already have a bunch of popular .NET build tools other than MSBuild like FAKE, basing one off of MSBuild doesn't seem to add a lot of value imho.