You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I understand that youtube-dlc is a fork of the youtube-dl project in order to speed up development. When youtube-dl got its takedown notice, youtube-dlc gained lots of traction. Now that youtube-dl is back again, and also seems to be maintained more or less frequently, my question is: Will youtube-dlc adopt proposed PRs both of youtube-dl and yt-dlc, or is there a different long-term plan?
Also I had no idea this repo (yt-dlc) existed, when I was looking at the youtube-dlc fork. I didn't see any mention that the development has moved to a dedicated repository. It gave the impression that youtube-dlc was dead, when in fact it's still being maintained, just under a different repository. Perhaps include a notice and archive it as read-only?
IMHO it would also make sense to either include GitHub releases in the build process, or remove the release section entirely, as it makes the project look outdated.
reacted with thumbs up emoji reacted with thumbs down emoji reacted with laugh emoji reacted with hooray emoji reacted with confused emoji reacted with heart emoji reacted with rocket emoji reacted with eyes emoji
-
Hi there,
I understand that youtube-dlc is a fork of the youtube-dl project in order to speed up development. When youtube-dl got its takedown notice, youtube-dlc gained lots of traction. Now that youtube-dl is back again, and also seems to be maintained more or less frequently, my question is: Will youtube-dlc adopt proposed PRs both of youtube-dl and yt-dlc, or is there a different long-term plan?
Also I had no idea this repo (yt-dlc) existed, when I was looking at the youtube-dlc fork. I didn't see any mention that the development has moved to a dedicated repository. It gave the impression that youtube-dlc was dead, when in fact it's still being maintained, just under a different repository. Perhaps include a notice and archive it as read-only?
IMHO it would also make sense to either include GitHub releases in the build process, or remove the release section entirely, as it makes the project look outdated.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions