Comment by the__alchemist
Comment by the__alchemist 8 hours ago
The sort of project Grant made is exquisite. It's not built by OSS library maintainers: It's built by someone who is interested in the application, and is an expert in the domain. Suitable tools didn't exist, so he built and maintains a tool that works well for his real-world applications.
My pattern-matching brain thinks the fork is by people who want to build infrastructure that will suit its own end, at the cost of the original purpose of supporting the applications that call it. It is and will continue to decouple from the intended application. Design-by-committee, expanded to too many use cases, and just a general loss of UX. I think this is a clear case of comparing
"Expert who wants to get-shit-done" / "Library maintainers who want to maintain and promote a library"
The fork is better for normal people. There is no drama or controversy here.
Grant built a brilliant tool for himself. He's not interested in doing the work to make it useful to others, or even allow PRs to do so. He's glad to have others do that in their own fork.
The community edition does all the stuff needed to make this useful to anyone who isn't Grant. Everyone, Grant included, seems to appreciate that.
Grant's version has poor documentation, bugs, quirks, etc. Unless you're Grant, get CE.
Grant did the hard work of inventing this thing. That's harder than it sounds; many tried before and failed.
CE did the boring work of making it usable for others.