More maintainers required?

[curran]

Having submitted several pull requests that improve documentation, none have received any attention from maintainers for over 2 weeks.

I understand that life is busy, and working on ShareDB may be a low priority, but I feel the project could be made better if PRs were acknowledged in a more timely manner.

For example, there were two questions asked by @nickasd in various issue threads that could have been avoided if the documentation PRs were merged in a timely manner:

• Question on how to use "undocumented" projection feature
• Question on using document.removeListener()

It appears that currently only @rkstedman and @nateps (and maybe @avital) are able to merge pull requests. One solution to this issue of timely collaboration would be to add more maintainers to the project, with permissions to review and merge pull requests. Is this a possibility?

[nickasd]

This is such a handy library which could be the base for a lot of web applications. It would really be a pity if it wasn't maintained anymore.

[nateps]

Hey all! We're definitely planning on continuing to maintain. I've taken on additional responsibilities at Lever in the past 6 months that mean I've had to step away from day-to-day coding for the time being. We're growing the team substantially in the next 12 months, and it is explicitly on my objectives for the second half of this year to train engineers to take over the ares in which I have been the owner. Thanks so much for your interest and support for this project! It is a great signal of the value of the project to see your asks for continued development. I am excited to get to a world where we can have community maintainers help us to scale. In order to achieve that, we do need people that have enough historical context and expertise with the project over a long time involved in planning and leadership. There is a lot of knowledge that I was able to get from working closely with Joseph, the original author of ShareJS for a year and a half, and that has helped us to keep the project moving along and improving. I plan to do something similar in working closely with additional engineers and we are hiring full time engineers to work at Lever to work on the project. I hope to have good news to announce in short order along this front!

…

On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:28 AM, Nicolas Kick ***@***.***> wrote: This is such a handy library which could be the base for a lot of web applications. It would really be a pity if it wasn't maintained anymore. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#163 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAOLNMkJB3NLkbbynJqGIhkQGUrHkSs1ks5sKgXBgaJpZM4OM7DR> .

-- <l-signature name="Nate Smith" title="Founder and CTO" href="https://lever.co/" on-receive="reply()"> </l-signature>

[curran]

@nateps It's great to hear this! Thanks for your response here. Looking forward to see this project thrive.

[curran]

Would anyone be able to please review/merge this documentation PR on sharedb-redis-pubsub?

share/sharedb-redis-pubsub#7

It's been pending since June. Thank you.

[curran]

I've made some notes on issues that can be closed, and PRs that can be safely merged as-is:

Closeable Issues

• Couch DB support Couch DB support #131
• Renaming documents Renaming documents #143 (closed 👍 )
• Native iOS/Android version of Derby/sharedb Native iOS/Android version of Derby/sharedb #181
• add custom actions add custom actions #177 (closed 👍 )
• Servers as peers to each other? Servers as peers to each other? #158

Mergeable Pull Requests

• typo on log message "Ignorning" typo on log message "Ignorning" #176 (closed 👍 )
• Reconnecting Websocket Example and Updated Readme Reconnecting Websocket Example and Updated Readme #138
• Remove unused Duplex variable in example Remove unused Duplex variable in example #157 (closed 👍 )
• Link to sharedb-wsbus-pubsub Link to sharedb-wsbus-pubsub #184 (closed 👍 )

@nateps @rkstedman @josephg @avital I think there is a perception ShareDB is dead. Closing these issues and merging these PRs as-is would benefit the project by showing "signs of life". I don't believe they need thorough review, if it's a case of "no time for the project".

Anyone else listening in here wanting to contribute - please comment on the issues and PRs noting whether you agree that they can be safely closed/merged. Thanks!

[dcharbonnier]

@nateps the core of the problem is this "historical" background required, with good contracts between the different elements, unit tests and a bit of documentation it should not be too complicated for a project of this size. If not, maybe focusing on providing the required information should be the first goal. I can help on that.

[ile]

@nateps, what do you think of the native iOS/Android version of ShareDB/Derby? Would be useful, IMO.

I left a bunch of GitHub issues around asking for opinions on creating that, fox example derbyjs/racer#254.

[curran]

Closing as I've seen a slow churn of activity since opening this, and recent activity by @nateps woohoo!

[nateps]

:-) We're getting there!

[curran]

This PR looks mergeable to me, and IMO would be a nice "sign of life" to have reviewed and merged :)

• Fix server crashing on failed publish Fix server crashing on failed publish #201

[curran]

Reopening as PRs are going stale and being merged in active forks.

This fork looks to be the most active: https://github.com/Teamwork/sharedb/network

Maybe consider giving someone the ability to merge PRs in this repo?