Hi Hallvard, Thanks for joining the discussion.
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Hallvard Trætteberg <h...@idi.ntnu.no> wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry my comments are a bit late (Easter holiday/Spring break). > > From the consumer perspective, I agree that a table summarizing the > purpose, features and state of widgets is important. I think a table with > the following contents would be a good start: > > - widget name > - one-liner describing purpose > - SWT support (yes/no) > - RWT/RAP support (yes/no) > - JFace requirement (yes/optional/no) > - CSS support, i.e. can be styled with CSS > - lead maintainer > - (separate) indication of maturity (e.g. alpha, beta, released, mature) > and activity (e.g. inactive (dead?), stable (mainly bug-fixing), active > (new features in development)) > - links to example page, bugzilla, source repo, ... > Yes, there seems to be consensus about this. I will start this effort. > > From the maintainer perspective I think it is important to allow for > several models, from simple widget in common repo and little or no > overhead, to separate project with own repo, releases and site. This > ensures a low threshold for contributing, while allowing more complex > projects to manage on their own without burdening the Nebula lead. > I agree. This is more or less like we do it now. Edwin?
_______________________________________________ nebula-dev mailing list nebula-dev@eclipse.org https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/nebula-dev
