Even before this Twitter thread we had talk with Colorette author and I added mention to the docs, his name to LICENSE and promised him to not replace Colorette by Nano Colors.
I don't feel very convinced by the case you are trying to make here.
You did not mention colorette until you were forced to do it. Why not talk to the author before making a fork?
You mention that you disagreed with changes in colorette, but you have no evidence for it. If you discussed it in an issue or PR, that would be easy to find and share.
You took all of colorette.
The "backported" performance improvement is a single line of code. That you try to make it seem like exactly the same thing seems childish and bullish to me.
If you are really not acting in bad faith, why not drop your fork now that colorette has changed the API back?
Webpack team ask Colorette’s author to rollback API 2.x changes here (discussion was cleaned by Colorette’s author, but he said that it is how it see the best API):
https://github.com/jorgebucaran/colorette/issues/70
> why not drop your fork now that colorette has changed the API back?
Author continued to act impulsively. He rolled back API in patch release instead of major made breaking changes.
You mentioned colorette, but not that the package was a fork, only that the API was the same. It's very hard to not interpret that as dishonesty.
The author acted impulsively after you copied and rebranded his package and then started pushing it everywhere. And now that's your excuse to keep your fork.
To get back to my original post. We want people to open source their code if it's useful for the community. Your behaviour here is going to scare people away from doing that. One little mistake and then boom someone with a bigger name takes all of your work and fame.
Don't you see that this is not beneficial for the community?
> It will have a good support. My other projects from nano-series like very popular Nano ID shows a minimal number of bugs and excellent response time.
He meant you should mention your bias in the comments on HN, naturally you’re going to think you’re right (and they will think they’re right). It was my understanding that the commit history wasn’t originally saved - maybe this was wrong, did you have the commit history immediately after copying the code base? The main issue is then replacing it in open source software where the other version exists without due cause.
Should we copy your code, attribute it to you in a readme, and slightly optimize some of your code to replace your efforts everywhere?
lol, when it comes to one tiny change (which is highly unlikely to actually meet any copyright standard) suddenly they really care about credit? What a dick.
was? The main problem here is that it wasn't doing these things until the noise started. Nobody cares about it being a fork, the entire problem is how it was forked.
EDIT: lol, I only now realized you are ai. So now you are here, pretending you did all this the entire time and did not only add it all back after being called out on misrepresenting it? And at the same time trying to point at the other guys mistakes?
I added Colorette mention before the Twitter thread.
Just after Colorette’s author asked me. We even agreed on text form of this mention.
He started Twitter thread because of my PRs to Babel.
After Twitter thread I just copied git commits (only because another person helped my with doing it right) and created COPYRIGHT file (but Colorette author was mentioned in LICENSE before the threat anyway).
Please tell me why didn’t you just click the fork button or mentioned Colorette from the very beginning but instead started out maliciously and tried to use your influence to your advantage? To me there’s no other explanation than you tried to sweep it under the rug but it didn’t work out so you’re playing the victim card.
"Colorette isn't some obscure project either. It is well used. Now imagine I find a project that meets that description. Clone it. Erase the .git directory. Initialize a new repository. Make a few extraneous changes. Incorrectly benchmark it. Falsely claim improved performance. Tweak the docs. Change the name. Add a logo. Start aggressively promoting it and sending PRs to high-profile projects while leveraging a non-trivial social media following. I'm not against forking a project and adding new value to it. I encourage that. But that's not what's going on here. This is the collector getting away with a new piece for their collection."
Comparing that, to "promoting alternatives" to one of your projects on Twitter, shows a creepy lack of acknowledgement.
Check project’s history. I added Colorette mention in docs and LICENSE just after Colorette’s author asked me (before the Twitter thread). We even agreed on the text.
Colorette’s author created this thread because of my PR to Babel.
Even before this Twitter thread we had talk with Colorette author and I added mention to the docs, his name to LICENSE and promised him to not replace Colorette by Nano Colors.
The Colorette mention was there 5 days ago.