About the name `modules`
czhang03 opened this issue · 6 comments
the first sector of the list is called modules, but there are some thing definitely not modules in there, like:
- IDEs
- Chocolatey (Package Manager)
- AutoSPInstaller (SharePoint) [I think this is more a script than a module]
and ect. so I suggest changing it to Modules and Utilities instead of just Modules
Sounds reasonable. Have to admit that my initial content sure is out of date. Where would you draw the line between Utilities and Modules?
hum, I think Modules is more like plugins, but utilities are apps.
utility is not written in powershell script, but can be used in powershell (like thefuck and choco). but Modules are installed in the $env:PSModulePath and written in powershell language.
That is just my defination.
Agree. The word "Module" has a strong connotations in the context of PowerShell.
It's better to move IDEs and other non-ps-module things outside or better re-think the organization structure more deeply.
In general, I think that the naming and division is very strict right now.
For example, take a look how many items are in https://github.com/unixorn/awesome-zsh-plugins#plugins and they are not divided into a granular categories. I think it's better, because some things are hard to classify (i.e. PSReflect is mainly about security, but it's also a module and is generally useful).
It also worth mention that more loose structure will encourage more contributions, because it's way more work to create a category then to add one-line into an existing (loose) one.
@vors I see the problem with "Module". Instead of having Module and Resources as top-level categories I propose to create something like https://github.com/ianstormtaylor/awesome-heroku. Simply using a flat and sorted structure. If necessary also add the classifier in front of the link. The PowerShell repo itself could end up under "Meta", "Source" or whatever suitable. A short introduction on every category might also help new contributors. What do you think?
@janikvonrotz good thinking, flatter structure is better.
I'd say they have the same problem: there are categories with just one entry (like blogs). Also not sure that labeles in front is a good idea.
I think as a first step, we can remove Module and Resources from the top-level. Maybe rename Resources into "Reading".
Then I'd like to make the categories more loose. If something has 1 or 2 items, maybe it should be generalised.
How that sound?
I think the flat structure resolves this problem, I will close this issue.
If any one think there is anything wrong with the flat structure, feel free to reopen this issue