iskin

I started to mention Colorette when author asked me.

First mention (it was changed later) was added 6 days ago (threat was created 2 days ago): https://www.npmjs.com/package/nanocolors/v/0.1.2

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.

In my PRs I replace chalk to nanocolors

I copied one file and I didn't know a way to keep the history of this file.

When people later explained how to keep the history of single file I tried to restored it.

This is Nano Colors author.

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.

Sure. The first note was added 5 days ago https://www.npmjs.com/package/nanocolors/v/0.1.2

Seems like people are confused by git rebase which change commit time in GitHub.

As I mention here, because Nano Colors it's not just fork of Colorette. It was created as a mix of Colorette and kleur.

https://twitter.com/sitnikcode/status/1441827379454746637?s=...

Fork button will not work for this case.

I mentioned Colorette in docs and license even before this Twitter thread. Why is it a stealing?

When was another time?

> albeit after being called out

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.

I am mentioning it in Babel PRs:

> 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.

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).

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.

Nano Colors is mentioning Colorette in docs, COPYRIGHT and keep git history.

If Nano Colors are following all Colorette’s author asks, why he didn’t do it in return?

It was added in the first day, when Colorette author wrote me.

We even agreed on the attribute text.

I completely agree with it.

This is why I used Colorette for a year, promote it and send PRs there. https://twitter.com/sitnikcode/status/1441824191624486924

For for created because Colorette changed API and author didn’t want to change it back. The reasons of fork is clearly desrcibed in project’s docs https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/wiki/Colorette-Changes

I mentioned Colorette in Nano Colors docs, COPYRIGHT and keep the origin history.

But when Colorette author backported my performance optimizations he refuses to do the same in return.

I mentioned him in docs, COPYRIGHT and keep the origin history?

I clearly explain the reasons of fork creation and the changes https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/wiki/Colorette-Changes

What “fork rules” did I violate?

Why it is a unattributed fork if Colorette is mentioned in docs, COPYRIGHT and origin commits are in history?

Any ANSI color library is a very simple thing.

Nano Colors mentioned Colorette in docs, COPYRIGHT and keep origin git history.

If Nano Colors was open about credits, why Colorette’s author should not do the same?

You have a new benchmark results after you backported Nano Colors optimizations and refused to mentioned it

https://github.com/jorgebucaran/colorette/issues/78

Just look at performance changes history,

I promote PostCSS alternatives in PostCSS twitter account

https://twitter.com/PostCSS/status/777344095748579328

the mantion of colorette is on top of Nano Colors docs with clear list of why fork was created and the changes

https://github.com/ai/nanocolors#nano-colors

Another side of this story https://twitter.com/sitnikcode/status/1441824191624486924

Also at the end Colorette’s author back-ported Nano Colors performance optimizations, but this time he refuse to mention another developer. https://github.com/jorgebucaran/colorette/issues/78

Completely agree! I believe that op-log sync with CRDT-based atomic operations are a better solution.

Logux is one of the example of this approach:

https://logux.io/

This is why there is “With just three PNG images in this minimum set, you can use advanced tools to optimize their size. It solves a problem for Internet users that don’t have unlimited data plans.” note later in the article

Fair point. I replaced 48 → 32 in the article.

Small 48×48 icon in favicon.ico will not work on browser recent websites page (which is pretty popular feature)

Not 88%. Partial support on this Can I Use page is about different icon type in Safari.

SVG icon will cover only 70%.

Yeap, size=any works for the case when you do not have other PNG images as I recommend

Threads is my type of content in Twitter and I got a lot of RTs after writing few good threads.

Completely agree that Twitter’s UI for writing threads is pain.

HEIF container is just ISOBMFF container, so it should be royalty-free.

HEIF has problems because of HEVC encoder, which was replaced in AVIF.