You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tinkerpop.apache.org by Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com> on 2016/01/30 13:22:20 UTC
[DISCUSS] Younger Third Party Projects
We currently have a list of libraries on the home page that are provider
implementations, driver implementations and other odds and ends. We try to
promote only those libraries there that have some level of polish to them
(e.g. have a stable release, have some docs, etc). I think that's good,
but it has the shortcoming that "younger" projects aren't promoted at all
which has the downside that:
1. These projects could use some promotion to attract help with their work
2. Users don't know these projects are under development and end up
building their own which fragments available libraries should work be
duplicated.
I was thinking that we could add a section to the Developer Docs that
showcased these "younger" projects. I was thinking that the home page could
have a link to this new section somehow. Anyone else think this is a good
idea? If a good idea, is there a better place to add this and a good name
for what the section should be called?
Re: [DISCUSS] Younger Third Party Projects
Posted by Dylan Millikin <dy...@gmail.com>.
I was initially going to mention a "labs" section, but I like Daniel's idea
better. I just worry that it might be a little hidden from the rest of the
projects and still be missed.
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Daniel Kuppitz <me...@gremlin.guru> wrote:
> I think it was in the discussion before, but I like the idea of those
> "awesome lists": https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome.
> Why not create an "awesome TinkerPop list" and if anyone wants to add
> something, he or she can submit a PR. Easy to maintain, not too much extra
> work for us.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > We currently have a list of libraries on the home page that are provider
> > implementations, driver implementations and other odds and ends. We try
> to
> > promote only those libraries there that have some level of polish to them
> > (e.g. have a stable release, have some docs, etc). I think that's good,
> > but it has the shortcoming that "younger" projects aren't promoted at all
> > which has the downside that:
> >
> > 1. These projects could use some promotion to attract help with their
> work
> > 2. Users don't know these projects are under development and end up
> > building their own which fragments available libraries should work be
> > duplicated.
> >
> > I was thinking that we could add a section to the Developer Docs that
> > showcased these "younger" projects. I was thinking that the home page
> could
> > have a link to this new section somehow. Anyone else think this is a good
> > idea? If a good idea, is there a better place to add this and a good name
> > for what the section should be called?
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Younger Third Party Projects
Posted by Daniel Kuppitz <me...@gremlin.guru>.
I think it was in the discussion before, but I like the idea of those
"awesome lists": https://github.com/sindresorhus/awesome.
Why not create an "awesome TinkerPop list" and if anyone wants to add
something, he or she can submit a PR. Easy to maintain, not too much extra
work for us.
Cheers,
Daniel
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> We currently have a list of libraries on the home page that are provider
> implementations, driver implementations and other odds and ends. We try to
> promote only those libraries there that have some level of polish to them
> (e.g. have a stable release, have some docs, etc). I think that's good,
> but it has the shortcoming that "younger" projects aren't promoted at all
> which has the downside that:
>
> 1. These projects could use some promotion to attract help with their work
> 2. Users don't know these projects are under development and end up
> building their own which fragments available libraries should work be
> duplicated.
>
> I was thinking that we could add a section to the Developer Docs that
> showcased these "younger" projects. I was thinking that the home page could
> have a link to this new section somehow. Anyone else think this is a good
> idea? If a good idea, is there a better place to add this and a good name
> for what the section should be called?
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Younger Third Party Projects
Posted by Dylan Millikin <dy...@gmail.com>.
Sounds good to me. It also allows us to be more explicit about the project
maturity, it's current status (is it still maintained or abandoned) and so
forth. Maybe some projects can be passed along that way.
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I really don't want to maintain a separate repo of "awesome". How about we
> take from Jame's link? The projects listed on the home page are
> "recommended" and then we just have a link to "all projects" in that
> section. That link would go to an "appendix" of some sort in the reference
> docs. Is that a good way to deal with it?
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:39 AM, James Thornton <ja...@jamesthornton.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I've always liked how Redis does it: http://redis.io/clients
> >
> > - James
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > We currently have a list of libraries on the home page that are
> provider
> > > implementations, driver implementations and other odds and ends. We
> try
> > to
> > > promote only those libraries there that have some level of polish to
> them
> > > (e.g. have a stable release, have some docs, etc). I think that's
> good,
> > > but it has the shortcoming that "younger" projects aren't promoted at
> all
> > > which has the downside that:
> > >
> > > 1. These projects could use some promotion to attract help with their
> > work
> > > 2. Users don't know these projects are under development and end up
> > > building their own which fragments available libraries should work be
> > > duplicated.
> > >
> > > I was thinking that we could add a section to the Developer Docs that
> > > showcased these "younger" projects. I was thinking that the home page
> > could
> > > have a link to this new section somehow. Anyone else think this is a
> good
> > > idea? If a good idea, is there a better place to add this and a good
> name
> > > for what the section should be called?
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > James Thornton, *http://electricspeed.com <http://electricspeed.com>*
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Younger Third Party Projects
Posted by Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>.
I really don't want to maintain a separate repo of "awesome". How about we
take from Jame's link? The projects listed on the home page are
"recommended" and then we just have a link to "all projects" in that
section. That link would go to an "appendix" of some sort in the reference
docs. Is that a good way to deal with it?
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 3:39 AM, James Thornton <ja...@jamesthornton.com>
wrote:
> I've always liked how Redis does it: http://redis.io/clients
>
> - James
>
> On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > We currently have a list of libraries on the home page that are provider
> > implementations, driver implementations and other odds and ends. We try
> to
> > promote only those libraries there that have some level of polish to them
> > (e.g. have a stable release, have some docs, etc). I think that's good,
> > but it has the shortcoming that "younger" projects aren't promoted at all
> > which has the downside that:
> >
> > 1. These projects could use some promotion to attract help with their
> work
> > 2. Users don't know these projects are under development and end up
> > building their own which fragments available libraries should work be
> > duplicated.
> >
> > I was thinking that we could add a section to the Developer Docs that
> > showcased these "younger" projects. I was thinking that the home page
> could
> > have a link to this new section somehow. Anyone else think this is a good
> > idea? If a good idea, is there a better place to add this and a good name
> > for what the section should be called?
> >
>
>
>
> --
> James Thornton, *http://electricspeed.com <http://electricspeed.com>*
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Younger Third Party Projects
Posted by James Thornton <ja...@jamesthornton.com>.
I've always liked how Redis does it: http://redis.io/clients
- James
On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 6:22 AM, Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> We currently have a list of libraries on the home page that are provider
> implementations, driver implementations and other odds and ends. We try to
> promote only those libraries there that have some level of polish to them
> (e.g. have a stable release, have some docs, etc). I think that's good,
> but it has the shortcoming that "younger" projects aren't promoted at all
> which has the downside that:
>
> 1. These projects could use some promotion to attract help with their work
> 2. Users don't know these projects are under development and end up
> building their own which fragments available libraries should work be
> duplicated.
>
> I was thinking that we could add a section to the Developer Docs that
> showcased these "younger" projects. I was thinking that the home page could
> have a link to this new section somehow. Anyone else think this is a good
> idea? If a good idea, is there a better place to add this and a good name
> for what the section should be called?
>
--
James Thornton, *http://electricspeed.com <http://electricspeed.com>*