+1 to no longer supporting the Apps section. Downstream projects get more benefit from this than we do, IMO.
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Filip Maj <maj....@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm of the opinion that we, the cordova devs are already sinking under > the amount of incoming PRs and TODOs just with maintaining the > tooling, platforms, plugins, and docs. > > I think it would be better to turf it and let downstream projects do > that stuff if they wish. I think PhoneGap has one, so does ionic. > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Kerri Shotts <kerrisho...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > If we’re going to have an apps section on the website, it would be good > to keep it updated. For example, the ReactEurope app goes to a 404 page. > Buildr navigates to an iTunes page that is not available in the US region, > so doesn’t tell me anything (would be better to link to a website instead). > > > > Personally, it might be better just to drop the section entirely, since > it will require maintenance, would end up with some subjective criteria > (leading to “why them and not us?”), and would need to be rotated as new > apps are added to prevent a huge list of apps on the front page. I like the > idea, but maybe it would be better to have a Cordova App gallery (akin to > Plugin search, cocoapods, etc.)… but that could easily be done by the > community, since we’re tight on resources as it is. > > > > That said, if we’re going to accept apps, we need some (reasonable) > criteria for acceptance, along with the proviso that we won’t necessarily > always feature the app (since we don’t want to end up featuring 1000 apps > on the front page). > > > > Some starting criteria: > > > > * Should currently be available for sale/download on the appropriate app > stores. > > * The product needs to have a website where we can link (redirecting > into iTunes is not ideal). > > * The product should fit with Cordova’s CoC, since it’s being featured > on the front page. > > * The app itself should: > > * be visually appealing and well designed (this is subjective, but > no getting around that…) > > * actually work (this would require someone downloading & testing > it. Paid apps would need to supply a review copy for free.) > > * be performant (no jank, quick response to user input, etc.) > > * be in production (not just a demo app) > > * be more than just wrapping a remote website > > * Plusses for (but not required): > > * Available source code (so others can learn from the app) > > * Multiple platform support > > * Free or usable trial version so that users can get a good feel for > a performant Cordova app > > > > Those are just off the top of my head, so take them as you will. :-) > > > > ~ Kerri > > > >> On Jul 24, 2017, at 19:24, Shazron <shaz...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >> https://cordova.apache.org > >> > >> Are we still accepting apps? How do we select? > >> Right now there are 12. This relates to the Xmind request to dev@ > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org > >
