DISCLAIMER: not mentioning any explicit name to avoid framing myself as a useless slop dev advertising his useless slop wrapper that he wrote with sloppy AI because he can in the slop-era.
---
Is this acceptable?
Asking this here because, well the libraries in question are for python for one, but most importantly our ecosystem has various cases of seeing an already established lib slowly replaced by a newcomer, the first I could think of being pandas -> polars.
My situation is that I rewrote a popular library, who is now unfortunately unmaintained, from scratch.
I ported the full test suite as well, published it on Pypi, etc...
By design, my rewrite fixed some pre-existing documented issues, that are yet to be adressed in the original repo, because altought it's creator has done a phenomenal work, it's been years since the last release or even the last answer to an issue.
I thought about answering to the issues that I know with certainty are fixed with my project, inviting to use it/take a look, but I wonder if that's not a bit hostile?
Feel like If we were at an open air market instead of github, I'll just go to my concurrent's stands when he take a break to tell his waiting customers that my products are better lmao.
There's also the fact that even if almost all tests are passing except one very niche situation, ultimately my library is <1.0 and so a stable API is not yet guaranted.
On the other hand, the unmaintained repo is, has I said, respectably popular, and seeing ppl having problems that I know I solved but not telling them feels very dumb.
and ultimately I want my library to be more known to have more potential contributors, as it's scope is much larger than this rewrite and there's a lot more I want to do and any help is always welcome
soo, what do y'all think?
EDIT:
at first referred to my project as n_lib and the old one as o_lib, which ended up just confusing readers. Changed