search

tooling / book-of-modern-frontend-tooling

The Front-end Tooling Book
http://tooling.github.io/book-of-modern-frontend-tooling/
2.53k stars 177 forks source link

Adding Scaffolt to scaffolding tools #16

Closed ghost closed 10 years ago

ghost commented 10 years ago

It was extracted from Brunch

paulmillr commented 10 years ago

I wouldn't have included it because it is not that popular but loom is even less popular so +1.

proof: https://github.com/rpflorence/loom https://github.com/paulmillr/scaffolt

michealbenedict commented 10 years ago

I believe if there are folks willing to contribute content for their favorite tool, there shouldn't be any concern in including them in the book. That said, I would prefer if there was a simple process around why a tool should be included in the book (not sure whether popularity should be the only defining metric here). Thoughts? cc @addyosmani

sindresorhus commented 10 years ago

It should have actual users, good docs, actively maintained and intention to do so in the future.

michealbenedict commented 10 years ago

Very valid points. My only concern is that these points are quite subjective. I do understand it's not possible to quantify these factors, but it would be great to set some expectations in the interest of our the users, tool owners and content collborators. Just thinking aloud here.

On Monday, December 30, 2013, Sindre Sorhus wrote:

It should have actual users, good docs, actively maintained and intention to do so in the future.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/tooling/book-of-modern-frontend-tooling/pull/16#issuecomment-31354951 .

Regards, Micheal Benedict Arul Software Engineer, Twitter

passy commented 10 years ago

I'd prefer selecting the tools by Sindre's requirements, as well. A book covering best practises loses a lot of its value if you overwhelm the user with too many choices.

Plou commented 10 years ago

I think @addyosmani wrote something about how to pick a generator, which list some good criteria, did you ?

tomByrer commented 10 years ago

It should have actual users, good docs, actively maintained and intention to do so in the future

I believe those are good qualifications. How about an 1-3 line mention of lesser-known systems please in v1? (Though a repo with only 2 users should still be skipped IMHO). Some may find lower-popular options best for them, & could lead to improvements for the major repos.

When v2 or v1.2 of the book rolls around relevance of adding or expanding chapters can be re-examined.

sindresorhus commented 10 years ago

What @tomByrer said; focus on the main ones, but still mention some other interesting ones for diversity.

addyosmani commented 10 years ago

I think that we've covered this elsewhere but we're more than happy to add this in if someone is willing to author the content for a chapter on it. Right now all of the other tools included have authors who have committed to writing content about them.

ghost commented 10 years ago

So that's it? I'll write the content if Scaffolt is being given the boot because no one did what Addy suggested. But I disagree with the forceful nature of the closure of this PR - and it's not the first time...

sindresorhus commented 10 years ago

As already mentioned, we would be happy to receive a PR with some paragraphs on it :)