-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 231
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Question: How should these crates be handled? #457
Comments
This is not explicitly including the crates that are very old and haven't been updated. Sorting by latest supported Bevy version will help with those cases (#297). |
The "multiple crates" assets are fine of course. I marked them down to note that I had to pick just one of their multiple crates for the |
My take: IMO the crates with no If not fully removed, at the very least a lot of these crates should be hidden or marked somehow to avoid misleading / wasting a Bevy user's time. |
Personally I think it's okay. Some crates are intentionally waiting for a proper release while others never intend on releasing for whatever reason. I think the important thing is that the crate can be imported somehow.
Agreed. Crates should be marked by "easiest" import: if not |
I left |
It might be useful too if crates automatically tracked when they were last published or when a commit was last pushed. |
@MrGVSV wouldn't that already be handled by sorting by latest supported Bevy version? I think going beyond that would be a bit hard to analyze, since many crates are good as they are now and don't need changes beyond Bevy version bumps. |
Fair. I like to see how "active" a dependency is before I bring it in, but I suppose "last updated" doesn't really give the full picture there. |
I took some notes as I went by adding a
crate
field to every asset:The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: