Remarkable vs. Markdown-it

[vitaly]

@lu_zero

The contributions from this person are not that creative according to the commit messages.

Anyway, those commits are related to 1.6.0 - were done after i stopped sync my code to that repo and moved to another one.

[aleemb]

It seems that the control of the project has shifted to the two people who made something like 299 out of the 300 commits. However, the official listing does not list markdown-it and before I read this discussion, I was thoroughly confused seeing that markdown-it looks exactly the same with a different name.

I would like to make a few suggestions:

1. If the remarkable project is now continuing under the same code authorship but a new name and leadership, it should be clarified on top of the markdown-it readme file, clearly:

   “Markdown-it is the result of the decision of the authors who contributed to 99% of the Remarkable code to move to a project with the same authorship but new leadership (Vitaly and Alex)”.

   This will help inform a lot of developers like me, who are totally confused by what’s going on. Why does it look the same but still have so many stars?

2. I see no reason to discredit jonschlinkert. If he has contributions, he should be credited. This is the right and professional thing to do. I am not aware of his role and the remarked project but you should give him credit. Likewise he should also credit you as the core contributors to Remarkable–a quid pro quo arrangement.

[vitaly]

@aleemb that was not me, who escalated conflict to public. I just don’t wish him to use my name and my work for speculations like “markdown-it is fork and not original”. As you noted, he has only one commit, not even related to code. It’s not a reason to give official credits. Place in copyrights & thanks is not limited, i’m not greedy, but problem is “how it’s used for the buzz”.

Thanks for constructive advices.

• I’ll ask jgm to update wiki link, didn’t know about it.
• Note about leadership change is a good idea. But i think that on the top of readme that can be accepted as strong wish to kick Jon in public. I’d like to avoid such effect. Are there any better method to keep devs informed? For example, in “authors” section?

[lu_zero]

@aleemb

I see no reason to discredit jonschlinkert. If he has contributions, he should be credited. This is the right and professional thing to do. I am not aware of his role and the remarked project but you should give him credit. Likewise he should also credit you as the core contributors to Remarkable–a quid pro quo arrangement.

According to git log jonschlinkert did nothing at all before the split and what he did so far amount to linting and other needed but not exactly creative activities. What is unclear is if the original remarked has any similarity with remarkable warranting credits in the original commit or not.

[chrisalley]

@vitaly

Note about leadership change is a good idea. But i think that on the top of readme that can be accepted as strong wish to kick Jon in public. I’d like to avoid such effect. Are there any better method to keep devs informed? For example, in “authors” section?

Some projects include an AUTHORS.md file.