> Because the patches weren’t accepted as is, they hard forked.
They weren't accepted for years, and if you're being honest, they never were going to be accepted. I'm guessing you thought Bram was also arrogant for forking vi?
You’re right. They weren’t going to be accepted, because they didn’t work the way that Bram thought they should and the people who pushed them would not change them to fit Bram’s goals. As package maintainer myself, if I get a PR/patchset the implements something in a way with which I disagree, I will not accept the changes. If I don’t care enough about the changes, then I probably won’t implement them either. Or I might do so later when I have time.
On the history of things, please be more precise. Bram did not fork vi. He worked from the Stevie code, which only ran on the Atari ST, so that he could use it on Amiga. It quickly expanded to other systems (I believe I encountered it after trying other DOS-based vi-like editors). That expansion eventually made it into the relative juggernaut it is today.
So... Bram won't accept their input, so they go make their own product with their input, and you call it arrogance. Got it.
You have every right to disagree with people's patchset, just as they have every right to disagree with your direction and decide to do it their own way.
I think that you’re intentionally misunderstanding, because that’s not at all what I said.
The arrogance is twofold:
1. Their way or the highway. It wasn’t that Bram wouldn’t accept their input, but that would not accept Bram’s input and change the patches to be closer to what he wanted for such a feature. He would not accept their input under their arrogant terms.
2. Their continued description of Neovim as a "continuation" of Vim—as if the development of Vim had stagnated (it had not, it just wasn’t at the pace that the Neovim developers wanted). It’s a garbage statement that should have been removed five minutes after it was first stated, unless the person making (and continuing to make) the statement is so arrogant that they can’t see that it’s an outright falsehood.
Frankly? I don’t care that Neovim forked from Vim. IMO, it’s got some interesting ideas overshadowed by a core team that is careless with its language and some of its technical direction (see elsewhere on the treatment of ACLs, which makes neovim fundamentally unsuitable as a system editor). As an editor, I think that it’s less mature and stable than vim. I think that the use of Lua is interesting, but that the Lua/Vim API is less than useful. As an experimental testbed for some neat ideas…good on them.
Could I contribute to neovim to fix some of the issues that I have with it? Sure. I don’t want to, though, because on the whole I find the attitude from the neovim developers to be unwelcoming. That could be fixed by removing unnecessarily inflammatory language and no longer lying about the origins of neovim.
Forks can be good, even if there is no cross-pollenization between the projects. Look at the success of egcs. But they aren’t good when they’re founded on lies and ill will.
Frankly? I don’t care that Neovim forked from Vim.
I don't mind your indigination -- you've given neovim v. vim more
thought than most. I do mind when pointy heads say "I don't care" when
they clearly do.
Point of clarification: I don’t care about the fork. If you want to go a different direction than a parent project, that’s absolutely what you should do.
I do care about the way that the fork happened and the misrepresentations of the fork, so I’ve written way too many words about this today.
They weren't accepted for years, and if you're being honest, they never were going to be accepted. I'm guessing you thought Bram was also arrogant for forking vi?