The 72 hours blew past and I didn't even notice. Looks like there aren't any objections so I'll get HGraphDB added to the listing tomorrow morning.
Thanks, Ted On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Ted Wilmes <twil...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think at this point it's not too big of a problem and yeah, your point > about it giving dormant projects a possible boost is a good one. Perhaps > in > a few months we can reevaluate and if things look a little out of control > we could introduce an every 3-4 months "pruning" of projects that no longer > meet the criteria. > > --Ted > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Yeah - I think I'd come up with the "current or previous 'y' version" >> stipulation. I still like that as a measure of "active" but at the same >> time I've not really wanted to apply it a heavy-handed way. Projects that >> become dormant may be helped by the promotion provided by TinkerPop (e.g. >> someone finds ts-tinkerpop through the listing and starts to try to >> contribute to it). Maybe it's not too big a problem yet? >> >> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Jason Plurad <plur...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > +1 on the HGraphDB index listing. >> > >> > I think another minor concern is how to handle projects that have gone >> > dormant, like ts-tinkerpop or scalajs-gremlin-client for example. >> > Understanding how versions line up between TinkerPop and whatever >> database >> > or library they want to use has been a pain point for many users. >> > >> > My emphasis below: >> > >> > The project must be *actively* developed/maintained to a current or >> > previous "y" version of Apache TinkerPop (3.y.z). >> > >> > -- Jason >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > > I sorta share that sentiment however, I think we had that discussion >> back >> > > when we determined our listing requirements and we figured we couldn't >> > > figure out how to easily quantify "mature". >> > > >> > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Jean-Baptiste Musso < >> jbmu...@gmail.com> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > Interesting thing. +1 to adding HGraphDB to the list. >> > > > >> > > > Minor concern: I'm not sure if we want to manage a curated list of >> > > > implementations and maybe restrict to more mature projects. I'm just >> > > > thinking out loud here: I'm not targeting HGraphDB specifically >> (and I >> > > wish >> > > > them good luck - *cheers*). My main concern is that the project is >> very >> > > > young, but graph databases need as much publicity as they can. >> > > > >> > > > Jean-Baptiste >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 8:58 PM, Ted Wilmes <twil...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hello everyone, >> > > > > Robert Yokota notified us today that he has developed an >> > > > > Apache TinkerPop enabled graph db: https://github.com/rayokota/ >> > > hgraphdb. >> > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong Robert, but it looks like it's at the >> > TinkerPop >> > > > > 3.2.3 version. >> > > > > >> > > > > I think HGraphDB meets our index listing requirements but I >> wanted to >> > > > bring >> > > > > it up >> > > > > just in case anyone felt differently. Unless there are any >> > objections, >> > > > > I'll assume lazy >> > > > > consensus in three days (Sunday, November 13, 2016 2:00 CST) and >> add >> > > > > HGraphDB >> > > > > to the graph systems listing. >> > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, >> > > > > Ted >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
