And he incorporated it into his benchmark to show that colorette is as fast as nanocolor.
It sounds like an important optimization.
If this wasn't copied, colorette would have been objectively worse than nanocolor.
And he copied the entire source code earlier and didn't mind hiding who wrote that? But now suddenly a tiny fix (which might be tiny and obvious enough to not even meet any copyright standard, although that's always vague and difficult) is worthy of demanding attribution for? That's really not the moment to go nitpicking the other guy. (Would a mention in the commit message have been really good style anyways? yes.)
If Nano Colors are following all Colorette’s author asks, why he didn’t do it in return?
I agree with you here, but aren't we talking about something else?
> But now suddenly a tiny fix
It's an impactful fix. Now colorette can claim that there's no performance difference between colorette and nanocolors.
If this fix wasn't there, colorette would be objectively slower than nanocolors.
If I am the user, I will choose the one that is faster, so this is an important improvement.
> is worthy of demanding attribution for?
Yes. Are you against both attributing each other accurately?
Nanocolors currently attributes colorette for the whole fork (albeit after being called out).
Colorette still refuses to attribute nanocolors specifically for this important performance improvement, even after being called out.
> That's really not the moment to go nitpicking the other guy.
Why not? The current topic is about improper attribution.
It's fair to look at improper attribution on both sides, not just one side.
Nano Colors mentioned Colorette in docs and Colorette author in LICENSE before Twitter thread. Colorette’s author asked m and I add the mention and agreed on the text.
It seems many other comments claiming that attribution is only provided after being called out.
Seems like people are confused by git rebase which change commit time in GitHub.