This is completely incorrect comment. There is no rejection of any form, it is logical that the main developer who used it to build itch.io is not going to put in the effort to do something they don't care about. But the product is open source, anyone can write that functionality, and I am sure it would be accepted. What you are complaining about is a developer who is not willing to put in free effort for a feature you care about, but are not willing to contribute to.
> But the product is open source, anyone can write that functionality, and I am sure it would be accepted.
I have often read on HN that not accepting a PR for a feature that is not tangential to the core business of the project is valid and understandable when the maintainer believes it will require too much resources (bug triage, fixes, documentation, short or long term support in the forums, etc.) from him.
I am sorry, I wish I could rephrase "from him" with a neutral pronoun but it's too late for editing. English isn't my first language and I don't have the same reflexes when writing.
> What you are complaining about is a developer who is not willing to put in free effort for a feature you care about, but are not willing to contribute to.
How exactly is this complaining? I am merely making an observation, not even in the earshot of their devs. I had evaluated Lapis years ago, but quickly moved on when it didn't seem adequate. I didn't complain about that in their issue tracker then, and I am not going out of my way to bring this up now because I am holding a grudge like you are implying. Whether or not they add websocket today wouldn't matter to me in the least, I am simply indifferent to it.
> it is logical that the main developer who used it to build itch.io is not going to put in the effort to do something they don't care about
There are plenty of frameworks that add features well beyond what the devs need for their own products. All I am saying is it might be more logical for other people here to use those instead. Of course people can come to this conclusion on their own, but highlighting what I believe to be a key information may save that time.
I don't get this sentiment. Just as the maintainer is allowed to do whatever they want with their project, random people on the internet can also warn other people about downsides of said project. Absolutely nothing GP said implied that they felt entitled to a feature.
It is useful information for potential users to know how the project works and if it might not fit them well. There's no contract or agreement between the maintainer and users. Users are free to talk about the project. As long as they don't demand anything I don't see the issue at all.
