Maintainer needed
arnvald opened this issue · 18 comments
Hi everyone,
as many people have already noticed, Sorcery hasn't been actively developed for quite some time. For the last few months I've been hoping to change this situation and start spending at least a few hours a week finishing version 1.0. Unfortunately it didn't happen and at this point I'm sure I won't finish it, for which I'm very sorry. With a number of things I do and the fact that I haven't been recently working on any project using Sorcery, I simply prioritize other things over this library and it gets very little of my time.
A few people mentioned their concerns about the project, but so far nobody has reached me willing to take over development of Sorcery, so I've decided to open this issue. If anyone's interested in maintaining Sorcery, please let me know. It'll be great if the project is continued - it still has a lot of users and there's plenty of things that can be done to improve it.
I myself can commit to spend a few hours with whoever takes the project and document all the things that have been done and all the work that I've started but never finished (I have a bunch of local branches with some features I have worked on).
You can reach me either by email (available on my profile page) or simply by responding here.
Regards,
Grzegorz
@arnvald, I'll be happy to take it on. I'd like to hear about what you have planned for 1.0, and I'll try to triage the PRs and Issues over the next month.
Grzegorz, thank you for all the work you have done for Sorcery! ❤️
Regarding future development:
I tried to do some major architecture refinements on Sorcery when I used to work on it, but I came to the conclusion that it's easier to start with a new gem from the scratch. So my personal opinion is that we should aim only to security releases and critical bug fixes, without adding any new features.
Hi @Ch4s3 and @zacksiri, thanks a lot for responding!
@Ch4s3 I got your email, I'll write you back this weekend.
@kirs yeah, I also struggled with that and I think you're right. On the other hand Sorcery has a lot of users and plenty applications rely on it, so I think if Chase and Zack decide to add new features (there's a bunch of open pull requests that could either be merged or moved to separate gems), I'm sure a lot of people will benefit from that.
I'd also be happy to collaborate on this project
I am available to help as well
@kamiller awesome! Feel free to jump in on issues and PRs. I'll be posting more about the path to 1.0 soon.
Hi I am using sorcery in my apps and would also be interested in contributing to this project, especially since there are some more experienced members participating
@abhishekover9000 take a look at the issues, and docs and submit pull requests as you find things you want to fix! I'll post some todos in the near future.
@Ch4s3 would it make sense to udate the Readme now that you've taken over the project?
@andreimoment we're still transitioning, so we'll probably remove it soon. Thoughts @arnvald?
I would be interested in helping contribute as well. I'm using this gem for work and my personal website and there's several features and bug-fixes that I'm trying to complete as part of that.
@Ch4s3, @arnvald, @kirs: Where do we stand on the transition? It also sounds like we'd be more interested in starting a new gem from scratch rather than refactoring Sorcery (in the long term)? If that's the case it would seem preferable to focus on that rather than Sorcery 1.0 (and/or start a new codebase and call it Sorcery 2.0).
@athix @andreimoment @murtali So we are slowly transitioning at the moment. There is an issue open for the 1.0 roadmap, and some open stuff that needs review. I'm currently working through the backlog of PRs and trying to write a bit of new code. Feel free to jump in and write code, comment on PRs and so on. I'll try to set some milestones soon. Also, please let me know if you have any major issues.