You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
+[NearestNeighbors.jl](https://github.com/johnmyleswhite/NearestNeighbors.jl) :: Data structures for nearest neighbor search.
+[ReverseRegexes.jl](https://github.com/carlobaldassi/ReverseRegexes.jl) :: Adds functionality to reverse-search strings with regexes
### Sorting
+[WikiSort.jl](https://github.com/iamed2/WikiSort.jl) :: An implementation of the WikiSort algorithm in Julia.
### Time
+[LabelPropagation.jl](https://github.com/afternone/LabelPropagation.jl) :: A fast, nearly linear time algorithm for detecting communtiy structure in networks.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well.. it is publicly available and I do list repos that dont live up to their names ;)
But if you want it removed, it goes - the package owner gets the final say!
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry to hijack this thread, but I wonder if it would be reasonable to add some sort of metadata to each listing which includes whether a package falls into various categories:
Production-ready
Tested
Actively maintained
Abandoned
Experimental
A "throw-away toy repo"
It may be reasonable to let the community compile this data (possibly a google docs form or sheet?) by asking on julia-users for assistance in filling in the blanks for repos that they have personal experience with.
I find that this repo is such an enormous help in searching out new functionality, but that it can take a long time to evaluate which packages are worth looking at. Also I too have a couple repos on here that are in various states of usefulness, and it can feel strange to have them on here without context.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Tom Breloff ***@***.*** wrote:
Sorry to hijack this thread, but I wonder if it would be reasonable to add some sort of metadata to each listing which includes whether a package falls into various categories:
Production-ready
Tested
Actively maintained
Abandoned
Experimental
A "throw-away toy repo"
This would be a nice to have list but who are we to judge? Unless the
package owner/creator tags their repos, it is just guesswork and
probably premature to assume what status the package is in. I list
some packages that were developed in ver0.01 only because its freely
available and someone else may want to continue with the work if it
aligns with their research or work.
It may be reasonable to let the community compile this data (possibly a google docs form or sheet?) by asking on julia-users for assistance in filling in the blanks for repos that they have personal experience with.
Perhaps we could try an experiment - instead of googledoc ask the
community to add a {tag} near the package name and submit a PR?
Not sure atm, but the more I think, I realize that owners/creators or
core-dev maintainers are the best persons to tag the status of their
package as only they know what works and what does'nt - especially
true for lesser used packages. That is ofcourse just my personal
opinion. fee free to disagree. IMO, the danger with crowd-sourcing is
: What if a community member decides 'foobar' package is unstable as
it didnt work for them or 'not maintained' if they refused to add
requested features?
Community feedback is a good thing if they file bugs and so on, but
lets not forget that there is a risk of some package owners being
offended with the community tagging the status of their package
negatively. If you know what I mean? :-) I usually keep METADATA as
the final authority for stable or actively maintained packages but
even that changes frequently. I think the easiest way is to have
METADATA find a way to effectively tag packages, else it is hard to
know the original author intends - example, some packages on
metadata.jl fail for the latest Julia version, so how do we label
those?
I find that this repo is such an enormous help in searching out new functionality, but that it can take a long time to evaluate which packages are worth looking at. Also I too have a couple repos on here that are in various states of usefulness, and it can feel strange to have them on here without context.
Thank you for the kind words. I understand what you mean. I guess that
comes with the new language and its growing pains. I would love to
find a solution to the problem too but I dont have the perfect answer.
I am more worried that if we start being aggressive about tagging
packages, then some folks will not want to be listed at all as their
package is still 'unfinished'. That would be sad, dont you think?. I
want to encourage folks not discourage them from showing off their
unfinished julia code on github.
/zero paise worth.
SVAKSHA ॥ http://about.me/svaksha ॥
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have an "unfinished" package listed here and I think it is fine! I think you do a great work listing them. And I agree this list can motivate the community to contribute to the repos.
Particularly, I use to use git tepositories others than github when I dont want my code to be visible. Bitbucket is the best one I have tried so far.
Best,
Charles
---
From: SVAKSHA ***@***.***
Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 5:43 PM
To: svaksha/Julia.jl
Subject: Re: [Julia.jl] @iamed2 : WikiSort.jl (a884fe9)
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 3:35 PM, Tom Breloff ***@***.*** wrote:
Sorry to hijack this thread, but I wonder if it would be reasonable to add some sort of metadata to each listing which includes whether a package falls into various categories:
Production-ready
Tested
Actively maintained
Abandoned
Experimental
A "throw-away toy repo"
This would be a nice to have list but who are we to judge? Unless the
package owner/creator tags their repos, it is just guesswork and
probably premature to assume what status the package is in. I list
some packages that were developed in ver0.01 only because its freely
available and someone else may want to continue with the work if it
aligns with their research or work.
It may be reasonable to let the community compile this data (possibly a google docs form or sheet?) by asking on julia-users for assistance in filling in the blanks for repos that they have personal experience with.
Perhaps we could try an experiment - instead of googledoc ask the
community to add a {tag} near the package name and submit a PR?
Not sure atm, but the more I think, I realize that owners/creators or
core-dev maintainers are the best persons to tag the status of their
package as only they know what works and what does'nt - especially
true for lesser used packages. That is ofcourse just my personal
opinion. fee free to disagree. IMO, the danger with crowd-sourcing is
: What if a community member decides 'foobar' package is unstable as
it didnt work for them or 'not maintained' if they refused to add
requested features?
Community feedback is a good thing if they file bugs and so on, but
lets not forget that there is a risk of some package owners being
offended with the community tagging the status of their package
negatively. If you know what I mean? :-) I usually keep METADATA as
the final authority for stable or actively maintained packages but
even that changes frequently. I think the easiest way is to have
METADATA find a way to effectively tag packages, else it is hard to
know the original author intends - example, some packages on
metadata.jl fail for the latest Julia version, so how do we label
those?
I find that this repo is such an enormous help in searching out new functionality, but that it can take a long time to evaluate which packages are worth looking at. Also I too have a couple repos on here that are in various states of usefulness, and it can feel strange to have them on here without context.
Thank you for the kind words. I understand what you mean. I guess that
comes with the new language and its growing pains. I would love to
find a solution to the problem too but I dont have the perfect answer.
I am more worried that if we start being aggressive about tagging
packages, then some folks will not want to be listed at all as their
package is still 'unfinished'. That would be sad, dont you think?. I
want to encourage folks not discourage them from showing off their
unfinished julia code on github.
/zero paise worth.
SVAKSHA ॥ http://about.me/svaksha ॥
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/svaksha/Julia.jl/commit/a884fe9e921d57b87d85e970c2f57b8f21025641#commitcomment-15804236.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments @svaksha. I see your points and agree. (I especially agree that it would be nice if METADATA had some of this curation) Also thanks for taking the time to compile this repo!
I suppose it does make sense for only the package authors to be allowed to update a "status". I'm happy to be the guinea pig and add a status for my packages with a PR. I wonder... what do you think would be a useful format?
With an example, I'm sure the rest of the community would be happy to contribute. We could just start an umbrella issue here and let package authors comment with the desired status, then compile into a PR when time allows.
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Tom Breloff ***@***.*** wrote:
Thanks for the thoughtful comments @svaksha. I see your points and agree. (I especially agree that it would be nice if METADATA had some of this curation) Also thanks for taking the time to compile this repo!
I suppose it does make sense for only the package authors to be allowed to update a "status". I'm happy to be the guinea pig and add a status for my packages with a PR. I wonder... what do you think would be a useful format?
With an example, I'm sure the rest of the community would be happy to contribute. We could just start an umbrella issue here and let package authors comment with the desired status, then compile into a PR when time allows.
Thanks for volunteering and I'm happy if package authors take the
final call on tagging their package. Would the following work? Feel
free to file a bug if you like and I can add these samples there too:
Example 1. + [SGP4.jl](https://github.com/crbinz/SGP4.jl)
{status_tag}:: Julia wrapper for the SGP4 satellite propagation model.
Example 2. + [SGP4.jl](https://github.com/crbinz/SGP4.jl) :: Julia
wrapper for the SGP4 satellite propagation model. {status_tag}
Example 3. + [SGP4.jl](https://github.com/crbinz/SGP4.jl) :: Julia
wrapper for the SGP4 satellite propagation model. {STATUS_TAG_CAPS_ON}
I'll update the contributing section with the tag categories you
suggested earlier. Thanks,
SVAKSHA ॥ http://about.me/svaksha ॥
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 4:53 PM, cndesantana ***@***.*** wrote:
I have an "unfinished" package listed here and I think it is fine! I think you do a great work listing them. And I agree this list can
Hearing a thanks is always motivating, so thanks for sharing your package :)
SVAKSHA ॥ http://about.me/svaksha ॥
a884fe9There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yikes! It's definitely not ready to be in here. It doesn't even sort! ;)
a884fe9There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well.. it is publicly available and I do list repos that dont live up to their names ;)
But if you want it removed, it goes - the package owner gets the final say!
a884fe9There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can come back and let you know when it actually contains the sorting part of the sort. Until then, it doesn't belong on a curated list.
a884fe9There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Fixed. Feel free to submit a PR whenever its ready.
a884fe9There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Sorry to hijack this thread, but I wonder if it would be reasonable to add some sort of metadata to each listing which includes whether a package falls into various categories:
It may be reasonable to let the community compile this data (possibly a google docs form or sheet?) by asking on julia-users for assistance in filling in the blanks for repos that they have personal experience with.
I find that this repo is such an enormous help in searching out new functionality, but that it can take a long time to evaluate which packages are worth looking at. Also I too have a couple repos on here that are in various states of usefulness, and it can feel strange to have them on here without context.
a884fe9There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
a884fe9There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
a884fe9There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments @svaksha. I see your points and agree. (I especially agree that it would be nice if METADATA had some of this curation) Also thanks for taking the time to compile this repo!
I suppose it does make sense for only the package authors to be allowed to update a "status". I'm happy to be the guinea pig and add a status for my packages with a PR. I wonder... what do you think would be a useful format?
With an example, I'm sure the rest of the community would be happy to contribute. We could just start an umbrella issue here and let package authors comment with the desired status, then compile into a PR when time allows.
a884fe9There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
a884fe9There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.