If anyone knows how to reach Matt (his GitHub profile shows activity) in a way that works better than what has been tried before, it would be helpful (in order to avoid a fork/recreate package move).
I’m inclined to pick some reasonable, but somewhat arbitrary, ‘deadline’ and then move ahead with a fork if Matt doesn’t, or can’t, follow-up about some of the maintenance issues.
That “Maintenance Help” issue tho was opened nearly nine months ago tho, so maybe it’s already past time to look for alternatives or start working on a fork now.
The easiest, but saddest, path forward might just be for everyone to maintain their own forks.
Scrivener is “in low maintenance mode” tho, so that might be a deadend too.
Personally, I just forked the GitHub project myself and am going to move forward using that for now.
I think I can – tentatively – commit to merging any reasonably generic changes that anyone else wants to contribute towards a ‘soft fork’. I didn’t see a lot of big changes in other repos in the ‘network graph’ (in GitHub) for the original repo earlier today. It might be easy enough for me to maintain the small number of changes everyone else wants. I’m willing to try at least for a limited time. We’d have to reference the GitHub Git repo for now tho. The original maintainer would either need to transfer ownership of the Hex package or we’d need to pick a new name and publish Hex packages under it.
It is the outcome that would make most sense to me.
As for the Hex package, as I commented on the issue you opened, I believe it would be great, as a community, to be able to find a way to keep the package names stables when such events happen.
For the Hex package, here are useful links (more for other readers):
There can be a friction in those operations, mostly due to the lack of awareness of the process, and also the fact that sometimes previous and new maintainers aren’t knowing each other well etc, but this is supported!
