"Professionally maintained" reads a lot like gate keeping... What is objectively better about InvokeAI's implementation?
To explain myself, these are specifically my pain points with Auto's repo:
1) No stable releases or versioning. This makes it difficult to use, as any given pull of the repo could be in a broken state. A better alternative is to, at the very least, tag known working commits.
2) Lack of testing; this is related to above. Even basic tests that would stop things like LDSR from randomly breaking would be a huge boost in usability.
3) Easier to use UI. This isn't a huge thing; Auto's UI is fine, though some better guides and documentation would be nice. But InvokeAI's UI and default settings are much better, in my opinion.
4) Lack of an official Dockerfile. It's nicer to have things in one place, especially to keep them in lockstep with code changes.
5) Association with racism.
When I said "professionally maintained" I didn't mean to imply maintained by a business or some other sort of gatekeeping. Though I can see how it read that way, and I appreciate your comment on it.
Instead I just mean things like the above, which other projects are getting right. They just don't yet have the feature set of Auto's project.
It'd be one thing if the dude was just prickly to work with or something, but it's unprofessional behavior by even the lowest standards.
-
InvokeAI on the other hand is being more open with their development, and making good effort towards having some sane licensing setup.
I'd say even just separating the project from personal accounts with racially charged game mods goes a long way for professionalism, but maybe you'd say that's gate keeping?
UI is subjective but it's not hard to call InvokeAI's more polished since again, the bar is so low with A1111's interface