mifi/lossless-cut

Choose this fork if you want a mostly upstream LosslessCut with a few concrete quality-of-life and platform tweaks. Choose upstream if you want the broadest feature set, freshest fixes, and the least maintenance risk.

Choose this fork only if the segment-shifting workflow changes are exactly what you need and you are willing to give up years of upstream fixes and updates. For most adopters, current upstream is the safer choice.

Prefer upstream unless you specifically need one of the fork’s niche workflow tweaks. This fork looks like a customization branch, not a modernized alternative, and its long inactivity plus large behind count make it a poor default choice for new adopters.

Choose this fork only if localization or downstream translation maintenance is the main goal. If you want the newest LosslessCut features and fixes, upstream is the safer choice.

Prefer upstream unless you specifically need this exact snapshot as a starting point. It adds no visible capabilities, while trailing upstream by 79 commits creates real lag risk.

Adopt this fork only if its specific tweaks solve a real pain point for you; otherwise upstream is the safer choice because it is much more current and likely better supported.

Prefer this fork only if you need its specific custom runtime/package behavior and are willing to own a stale, highly diverged codebase. For most adopters, active upstream is the safer choice.

Choose this fork only if its custom abort/progress/stream-handling behavior matches a concrete need. If you want a current, well-maintained LosslessCut, upstream is the safer choice.

Choose the fork only if you need a legacy branch with a few downstream packaging tweaks. For normal use, upstream is the better choice because it is much more current, actively maintained, and far richer in recent fixes and compatibility work.