I incorrectly assumed some relationship between @rocauc and the guys behind YOLOv5 due to some shared language and diagrams, sometimes our brains jump to conclusions - sorry. Unfortunately the edit timed out before I could do much about it.
I really appreciate the follow up and the hard work that has gone in since by RoboFlow. This controversy isn't their fault and they really shouldn't get a bad rep for it - in fact their handling of the situation has been good. Maybe some more due diligence, but we're all guilty sometimes. These are the sorts of actions that earn my respect in terms of being an authoritative source.
My original comment was quite reactionary, the YOLOv5 guys have done some interesting work. We now have two new interesting approaches based on YOLOv3, I look forward to reading more about the YOLOv5 internals in the future. There was some strangeness around comments being deleted from their GitHub issues once they started getting noticed, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
With regards to naming, I really think there needs to be some clear change. YOLOv5 does not build on top of YOLOv4 in any way. I appreciate that the team was "scooped" on the name, but I don't think bumping the version number was the correct approach. It's extremely weird to people coming across this for the first time that YOLOv4 can outperform YOLOv5.
There are still some open issues to be addressed with regards to which network performs better and in which use cases, hopefully in the coming weeks it can be worked out.