Colorette author here. I put the benchmarks in a CI workflow so anyone can check. Click Benchmarks to see the results:

https://github.com/jorgebucaran/color-bench-test/runs/371243...

Wonder how “ai” would feel if you just forked postcss without attribution and opened PRs against popular projects to replace.

Something tells me they wouldn’t be so calm about the whole affair

I promote PostCSS alternatives in PostCSS twitter account

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

Which is nowhere near no_wizard's point. And nowhere near what you've done.

Gorge Bucaran, author of Colorette, summarizes your actions here https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/pull/14#issuecomment-927134...:

"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.

But that's why we're here, isn't it?

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,

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.

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?

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.

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.

You didn’t acknowledge the second part of my question

Were those new benchmark results before or after Andrey Sitnik removed a lot of the edgecase handlers from colorette?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28660536

He is Sitnik

See also https://github.com/ai/nanocolors/pull/14