Addressing a few statements you published

[baudneo]

Good on you for taking the initiative to make things better, but it seems to me that you made an assumption and took some shots. Forking and publishing your own is, of course, no problem; it just boggles my mind that you would publish the below statements without ever opening an issue or PR about such things.

Upstream stopped receiving updates at 0.0.6b16

This is incorrect. I am not sure how you came to this conclusion either.

• 54 previously-unrecognised device types, plus corrected classification (light vs switch, dimmable vs not) for several wired switch types that were simply wrong.

• Real data-loss and crash fixes found via a new unsupported-device debug capture: silently dropped status updates on certain packet variants, a TCP framing bug that discarded an entire read on one misaligned byte, and a crash that could permanently kill MQTT.

As you can see in my commit log, I accept Claude-authored PRs. Publicly calling out issues in the maintained upstream repo to try and market your fork without ever opening an issue, discussion or PR is a bit disrespectful in my opinion.

I wish you well in your endeavor.

[Proxy-alt]

You're right, and I appreciate you saying it directly instead of just walking away.

The "stopped receiving updates at 0.0.6b16" line was flat wrong - you've clearly kept shipping (I see commits through 0.0.6b19) - and I don't have a good explanation for how it ended up in there beyond not checking it before publishing. The device-classification and crash-fix bullets were the same problem: real findings from my own testing, but never raised with you as an issue or PR, so publishing them as a comparison wasn't fair to you. I've corrected the README to drop all of that - it now just describes what's specific to this fork's own architecture, not claims about yours.

Given you take Claude-authored PRs, I'd like to actually send the device-classification and crash fixes upstream properly instead of just sitting on them in a fork. I'll follow up with issues/PRs for the ones that still hold up against current upstream, rather than another drive-by claim - and thanks for the reply on #38 today, appreciate you taking the time to look at it.

Sorry for the bad first impression.