Post by @justine@snac.smithies.me.uk
@justine There are various reasons. I agree with some of them, but not with others. On the other hand, many projects have developers who are known only by their nicknames, so they're effectively anonymous anyway.
And yes, at the heart of it are some bad experiences (from a few years ago) that led them to take a step back from putting themselves out there on social media.
Or maybe they're still around, and we just don't know it? 😉
@justine The lack of a public Git/CVS repository is their choice, at least for now. They prefer to keep development fairly centralised, partly because there are several branches and some interesting features (!) that aren't ready yet, and they'd rather release them when they're ready.
After all, to me, open source is also about freedom. You don't necessarily have to follow a predefined pattern: announcement, public Git repo, issue tracker, and so on. You're free to manage your project as you see fit.
As I said, I don't agree with every decision, and sometimes I have a hard time convincing them otherwise 😄
But I respect their choices, and I really appreciate their decision to release littleFedi under the MIT license.
And ultimately, littleFedi is out there. Anyone can take the source code, fork it, and continue development in a more "traditional" way if they prefer. That's part of the freedom too. 😄
That said: snac is great - and, unless you badly need something that littleFedi has and snac hasn't, there's no need to migrate from snac to littleFedi.
And if you need the blog...you don't need littleFedi, too, there's BSSG 😉
@stefano@bsd.cafe @justine@snac.smithies.me.uk being anon both in terms of contact and cvs must be nice because it helps you focus in what they consider important.
also hello from my #littleFedi demo account heh