-

[jonschlinkert]

-

[jonschlinkert]

Ok since that is unlikely a massive PR will be welcomed here

I'm not sure what that means, it sounds like something is being bundled that shouldn't be. I'd happily welcome a PR for that.

At the same time, it sucks for the entire community when people publish duplicate libraries instead of trying to improve existing ones. Especially since your code is similar to previous versions of this package. Lame.

[jonschlinkert]

Why is Buffer included? Did you look at the tree? Maybe we can find that and eliminate it in whatever package is using it.

[dy]

Ok since that is unlikely a massive PR will be welcomed here, I've came up with an alternative implementation ....

**

Edited by Jon Schlinkert to remove link to duplicate package. I don't support this practice.

[jonschlinkert]

In retrospect, it seems clear that this was a spam to get attention for your new package, since 1) I don't see how Buffer is packaged in, perhaps it is, but that's easy to resolve, and 2) giving the timing of your issue and when you published the duplicate package, it seems clear that you were only trying to get attention for your duplicate.

[jonschlinkert]

@dy rarely does someone make their motivations so transparent. Your tweet just validated everything I just said.