@zoltan that's why I don't like the hostile nature of the fork. All the renaming makes it really hard to take changes from pachli and apply them to tusky
@joshix @zoltan@expressional.social I completely agree.
That's why I'm deliberate about creating something that can survive that. Scaling a project and onboarding new people is hard work, and is easily neglected.
Improved tooling, conventional commits, automation where possible, refactoring to simplify code, speed up builds, documented design decisions, PR feedback that helps contributors develop, etc.
There's https://nivenly.org/blog/2023/11/14/updates-for-october-and-november/ too.
@nikclayton why is nivenly better than tusky? The only time I heard their name was in this blog post https://twokitties.neocities.org/
That doesn't sound good
@joshix best as I can tell there's nothing of substance in that post, and there was widespread commentary from others debunking it, e.g., https://hachyderm.io/@hrefna/111316536984754484.
There's a section that discusses implementing FSEP at the client level, and uses Tusky as an example.
First, it doesn't make any sense. FSEP and other blocklists operate at the server level, not the client. A user-managed blocklist has different requirements and failure modes than a team-of-moderators-managed blocklist.
@joshix Second, it describes Tusky as the most popular phone client for Mastodon. Not true, the official Mastodon app has more users.
Third, it says the Tusky developers universally support FSEP, but is careful not to link to any evidence of that.
Fourth, it uses innuendo, writing "While it has been suggested that FSEP should be implemented in Tusky...", and links to a GitHub issue.
@joshix a) Anyone can create a GitHub issue for anything. Using that to insinuate that the project is at all interested in it is pretty poor form
b) The person who opened the issue appears to have a history of opening drive-by issues in projects without expecting to seriously engage with them (e.g., https://github.com/tuskyapp/Tusky/issues/1305, https://github.com/tuskyapp/Tusky/issues/1305, https://github.com/tuskyapp/Tusky/issues/1395) -- I can't see anything that strikes me as a good faith effort to contribute.
@joshix That's enough mistakes and dumb rhetorical tricks in the two paragraphs of their writing that I am knowledgeable about to make me extremely suspicious of the rest of what they've written.