Hi, all I suppose it's not just about the workload for Dan， it’s what do we think of the project.
At first, Weex has no toolkits, and thanks for Dan and other maintainer’s work, Weex has a good tool for starting guide, and we link to it in our official site . Maybe there should be a more in-depth discussion about whether toolkit should be a part of Apache Weex， in my opinion, it should be but is not yet, at present Weex focus on “framework” and focus on how to be integrated into mobile environment , which is used without toolkit, toolkit is a pluses but not a requirement. Dan is a strong developer and develop toolkit almost by himself, but we need more discussions and interactions between Weex repo and toolkit repo, not only just a link and a part of document. I’m looking forward to the “official” toolkit. Other opinions are really important, maybe I’m too “cleanliness”. Thanks. Adam Feng 在 2019年2月1日 +0800 PM5:29，Dan <faterr...@gmail.com>，写道： > Hi Myrle, > > At present, I can think of the difficulties mainly in the following aspects: > > 1. I'm not very understanding of apache's workflow at present, and also I'm > not a committer for Apache weex now, I should be voted to be a committer > firstly. > 2. The migration of the warehouse may cause some historical issues to > continue to track, the new repo will start from 0 (that's no bad, but a big > change). > 3. I need to re-adjust my code and follow the apache approach, which also > has a certain cost for me, and now I was the only one who works on the > weex toolchain. > > Maybe this issue can be resolved, but I'm not sure how much time I need to > complete this thing. > > I look forward to more comments and discussions to get this matter going. > > Thanks. > Dan > > Myrle Krantz <my...@apache.org> 于2019年2月1日周五 下午4:32写道： > > > Hello Dan, > > > > One answer inline below. > > > > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:07 AM Dan <faterr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > About move weex-toolkit project into the Apache repo. > > > > > > For now, this is a little difficult and also inconvenient thing cause the > > > current 2.0 tools are in a state of rapid iteration, and I also hope to > > > get > > > the user's usage from the tool, this may not be allowed by apache, I > > > prefer > > > to develop these tools as a third-party developer, it should be ok to > > > remind users in the documentation that it's not part of Apache > > > > > > This is a common misconception. Code does not have to be complete to be > > developed at Apache. Rapid prototyping and user feedback are important > > parts of all software development whether at Apache or elsewhere. For an > > example of a project currently doing this in incubation see PLC4X. > > > > Can you explain in more detail what makes development within an Apache > > GitHub repository difficult for you? Perhaps it’s an issue that can be > > resolved? > > > > It’s important that the Weex PPMC resolves this. A project which is split > > in this way cannot be effectively governed by the Weex PMC. The governance > > imbalance can cause distortions in the code architecture. More important: > > it can damage the community. > > > > Best Regards, > > Myrle > > > > (I speak from experience: I made exactly this mistake when I first became > > involved with Apache.) > >
