You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The README says that this fork was created due to inactivity of maintainers of the original repo. However, nowadays it seems that the original has picked up the pace. Also, GitHub says that "This branch is 150 commits ahead, 177 commits behind opentable:master." for the default branch of the fork.
Given that the original and the fork seem to have diverged, I wonder if the original motivation can be replaced with something that describes differences between the two. At the very least, it seems that the original now uses Docker and this fork uses prepackaged binaries.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
IMO "it's not that important" is not a good reason to close an issue. I myself am not in a position to create a PR for this since I have no idea what the current motivation is, but the maintainers might, since they're keeping it maintained instead of switching back to the original repo.
The README says that this fork was created due to inactivity of maintainers of the original repo. However, nowadays it seems that the original has picked up the pace. Also, GitHub says that "This branch is 150 commits ahead, 177 commits behind opentable:master." for the default branch of the fork.
Given that the original and the fork seem to have diverged, I wonder if the original motivation can be replaced with something that describes differences between the two. At the very least, it seems that the original now uses Docker and this fork uses prepackaged binaries.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: