Original Maintainer is back after a year's absence.

[kineticscreen]

So it appears that the original SmartIR has started getting updates again from @vassilis-panos.

Is there a plan for merging this fork back to the original now?

[litinoveweedle]

Hello, this is good question. At the beginning I tried to offer my help to him and even filled PR against his project. Unfortunately I got no response at all. Today my fork differs significantly from original code base and it would be only merge-able as it is. It also adds many features missing in the original code - again to not create breaking changes original developer would need to inherit my code as it is. On top of that I do not see any real gain in merging our projects. Not speaking about fact, that it is kind of hard to cooperate with someone who does even take care about replying to your help proposal for one year.

[kineticscreen]

Yeah I only just saw the now closed discussion thread between you two, and weighed in on what appears to be the obvious resolution, which is to merge your changes into his integration. It doesn't sound like he would be willing to make you a co-maintainer at this point, which otherwise would have made sense.

[litinoveweedle]

Hello, unfortunately you are correct. Without being co-maintainer I would be significantly limited in the development and maintenance of the code. And it doesn't seem that we are getting together well. 🤣

[kineticscreen]

If this isn't going to be resolved, and you are planning on getting your fork on HACS then a name change probably isn't a bad idea - what about SmartIR+ ? SmarterIR ?

[litinoveweedle]

Yes, that is probably something I am considering as well (including one of the names you come independently to ;-). It seems, that when re-naming repository Github will automatically redirects request to the old name to the new one. So that would not be breaking change. I would probably keep original config entry smartir so the configuration will not need to be changed.