I would guess it means they accepted AI generated submissions into the vim codebase.

There's a discussion in the EVi repo about needing to find people who know vimscript. Funny enough, I am planning to use contributing some vimscript to an extension as my first AI coding agent project partly because I don't know vimscript well. Although that does mean it'll be hard to critically evaluate the output. I can compare it to the rest of the code in the extension at least to make sure it fits the style.

A cursory search didn't turn anything up in the vim repo or elsewhere. I can see why the authors of the fork wouldn't want to stir up drama, but I am really curious too.

Agreed. Without the context it just feels like a petty reaction. For all the reader knows, it could be completely unrelated to AI. The repository owner could’ve had a falling out with the maintainers regarding features or may be trying to inject their own malicious code into the fork.

It’s not about specific offending portions, it’s the principle of having any LLM contributions at all. There’s a group of people who are so opposed to this stuff that they object to its mere presence anywhere.

There's a bunch of commits that have "supported by AI claude." as well. Whatever that's supposed to mean.

I'm not sure what the angle of where it's hosted is.. Are you suggesting the project would have more legitimacy if it was hosted on github ?

> At this rate, how likely is it that Codeberg is just going to become a wasteland of abandoned ideological forks (with the exception of one or two major projects) by next year?

I don’t know. What makes you curious about that?

I'll field this one as someone who has used regular ol' Vim for ~18 years and never switched. Why switch if your tool is working fine? I use vim literally every day all day long and it does everything I need it to do. Switching has a cost and there's no reason to pay it if it's working fine.

I use both gvim on linux and macvim on mac for a lot of things--not 'real' coding, typically, but opening and editing scripts and config files, writing in markdown, etc; I'm usually opening these from dolphin or finder. In the terminal, working on real code bases and not scripts, I use neovim. My configs for these have diverged a bit over the years but since the use cases are different, it doesn't bother me.

muscle memory mainly, I guess?

Sure, switching might not be that troublesome, but I can tell you the first 48 hours or so will be painful, you'll insert stray ":" and "i" characters everywhere :)

One reason might be how off-putting the Neovim community is, hijacking Vim discussions to denigrate an all-time-great, beloved work of technology and its creator (who did decades of work for free, gave it to the world, and gave any money to actual orphans) all for Neovim users'/devs' own egos, promotion, and obsession. Almost all of Neovim was made by Moolenaar, from concept to execution, and I don't know that I've ever seen any gratitude.

I've never seen Vim users do that. If I had to choose, I'd use Vim.

Because I don't choose what tools are available on every server at work, and it's guaranteed that at the very least old-school vi is installed on every linux server, and often vim. Maintaining that muscle memory is useful.