Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upDiscussion: Policies for add-on tools #373
Comments
icefoxen
added
question
Type-DOCS
labels
May 7, 2018
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
anderspitman
commented
May 7, 2018
•
|
I think a simple list of libraries people are successfully using alongside ggez would go a long way. A wiki page or dedicated |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
I'm in favor of the "gently discourage" naming policy, despite being guilty myself (in my defense, I was going to change the name before it got anywhere close to being published). All the names ever add is discoverability, and even then it's rather redundant: crates can have tags associated with them, and descriptions inevitably have to mention A list of supplementary libraries and projects to look at would be nice to have indeed, even as a "what's next?" paragraph at the end of tutorial/introduction. Although, it has to be done in such a way that it's maintenance from |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Before Love2d had a wiki page for it, all libraries were shared in the forum. A wiki page in the ggez repo might work too. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
People will name their crates using I love @Ratysz's suggestion with "moving" list of projects as it mostly moves maintenance burden to crate maintainers - at least we don't need to manually filter-out unmaintained projects. Anyway, I find it hard to image how ggez's ecosystem can function effectively without some kind of such list of helper libraries and tools. And this list automatically solves the problem with |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Yeah that was pretty much the intention of the |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
As a user of ggez, I think a wiki page with a suggested list of helpful crates would be nice. IMO, one of the biggest issues within the Rust crate community is discoverability; there are so many cool crates out there but it can be hard to come across them. It doesn't need to represent a set of officially sanctioned & supported crates; just a list of crates that users have found helpful. I agree with @ozkriff that preventing people from prefixing crates with |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
anderspitman
commented
May 9, 2018
|
@obsoke I'm a little embarrassed to admit I just discovered this, but the "Dependent Crates" (example) link on cargo has been very helpful for me when it comes to discovery. That's only for published crates though. I'm sure a lot of people would find a list of up-and-coming github projects useful as well. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Outlined these decisions in the FAQ in commit 693f3a5. Not sure that's the best place for them, but it works for now. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
How about some "unofficial prefix"? Because I really can't come up with standalone names for these little crates. Something like |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
@ozkriff If you want, sure! |
icefoxen
closed this
Jun 28, 2018
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Aha, the perfect official-unofficial prefix: |
icefoxen commentedMay 7, 2018
•
edited
@ozkriff is working on making a GUI and scene manager that work with ggez, and brought up a couple good questions on IRC:
ggez-zguiandggez-zsceneokay?My gut feeling so far is:
pistonandgfx, where there's ten million different crates, some official, most unofficial, and most unmaintained and experimental. We makes it hard for new users to figure out what the heck is actually going on. On the other hand, ggez specifically exists so that we don't need more than one crate to get new users started, and it's unlikely to get confused with anything else, so maybe in our case it's no big deal.docs/Projects.mdfile with no guarantees implied, but doing more than that sort of suggests some sort of commitment to maintain said tools as ggez evolves, and that's just something I can't handle. If we wanted to do this I would also want a procedure for "un-blessing" crates (deconsecrating?) that have become unmaintained, based on objective guidelines that can be followed without needing a judgement call or hurting peoples' feelings. In practice, I also think that any high-quality ggez-based tool that gets made is going to become popular on its own merits, without ggez having to commit to maintaining it. I'll happily pimp other people's projects.This has nothing to do with ozkriff's efforts specifically, I'm just trying to think about general policies. I like policies, 'cause we can write them down and then never again have to think about how to make decisions until we decide the policies need changing.😛
I hadn't really thought about these sorts of things before now though, and want people's inputs. Discuss.