I reached out to him when I could've filed a takedown notice instead. Later, after the tweets, I even asked him to shake hands on the whole thing[1][2][3], but he was already sunk-cost-mode on and determined to die on a stupid hill. Only because I called him out is that we were able to had my git history restored and copyright attributed.
> Their attitude since then has left a lot to be desired.
That refers to the forker's attitude following the tweets[4][5].
I'm that person, but that's not exactly what I did.
Wahoo, a framework I had built, became the base for the then, new Oh My Fish.
I, myself, committed[1] it into the Oh My Fish repository, effectively replacing everything but the name. This was a huge change.
Regrettably, I didn't include a migration strategy, and ended up breaking other things down the line because of that. This and poor communication on my part, eventually led to a fallout with the other maintainer and I exited the project. So, I asked them to revert my changes or provide full attribution.
Reverting my changes would've made no sense at that point, and I realize that.
Attribution was left as "Copyright (c) 2015, Oh My Fish!". That didn't do it for me. My name was not anywhere. Ironically, my name is now almost everywhere Oh My Fish is brought up.
Filling a DMCA notice was my careless reaction to the situation. I know that I could've handled it better. I wasn't at my best.
1. You contributed code to the project that broke a lot of stuff
2. You tried to "take back" the contribution - this is really rich, as you already gave the code away as is without attribution according to the repo license.
3. Your ego just couldn't accept not being mentioned, so you thought attempting to kill OMF was a good idea. Your fame and glory was important enough to try to kill a popular open source project.
It's not that you could have handled it better, you behaved with ego and toxicity every step of the way.
1. From a technical standpoint, it just meant swapping Oh My Fish for Wahoo and changing the name. But my complete lack of planning led to numerous issues that escalated to falling out with the team. I was new to FOSS, immature and reckless.
2. Absolutely. You can't take back gifts that you gave away in the first place. I could've looked for another way, but sadly, I didn't.
3. True. I felt slighted, and used that feeling to justify myself, but in hindsight, I was only being selfish.
"Colorette isn't some obscure project either. It is well used. Now imagine I find a project that meets that description. Clone it. Erase the .git directory. Initialize a new repository. Make a few extraneous changes. Incorrectly benchmark it. Falsely claim improved performance. Tweak the docs. Change the name. Add a logo. Start aggressively promoting it and sending PRs to high-profile projects while leveraging a non-trivial social media following. I'm not against forking a project and adding new value to it. I encourage that. But that's not what's going on here. This is the collector getting away with a new piece for their collection."
Comparing that, to "promoting alternatives" to one of your projects on Twitter, shows a creepy lack of acknowledgement.
lol, when it comes to one tiny change (which is highly unlikely to actually meet any copyright standard) suddenly they really care about credit? What a dick.
was? The main problem here is that it wasn't doing these things until the noise started. Nobody cares about it being a fork, the entire problem is how it was forked.
EDIT: lol, I only now realized you are ai. So now you are here, pretending you did all this the entire time and did not only add it all back after being called out on misrepresenting it? And at the same time trying to point at the other guys mistakes?
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).
Please tell me why didn’t you just click the fork button or mentioned Colorette from the very beginning but instead started out maliciously and tried to use your influence to your advantage? To me there’s no other explanation than you tried to sweep it under the rug but it didn’t work out so you’re playing the victim card.
Smithy is very focused on codegen, so the model is highly normalized. So for example, defining a list of something needs to be done using a `list` shape. This kind of list is something you'd see directly serialized and sent over the wire. For example:
list Messages {
member: Messages
}
Then you can reference Messages from other places in the model, like from a structure:
structure Something {
messages: Messages
}
In contrast, the `[City]` syntax is used in other places in the IDL to define a relationship to a shape. This isn't something that gets sent over the wire, it's just used to form essentially a relationship in the service graph from a service to resources, a resource to operations, an operation to errors, etc. For example:
I think, from reading around the examples/spec a bit, collections of items use brackets to bound the collection. The examples are collections of a single item though, so it's slightly confusing at first glance. One hint at that is the keys defining those collections seems to be pluralized in all the cases I've seen so far.
> Their attitude since then has left a lot to be desired.
That refers to the forker's attitude following the tweets[4][5].
[1]: https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/pull/14#issuecomment-927757...
[2]: https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/56996/135221889-52...
[3]: https://twitter.com/jorgebucaran/status/1442055448899641348
[4]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28661094
[5]: https://github.com/jorgebucaran/colorette/issues/78