Can we adopt a new policy?

[frederikhors]

I like your project very much.

However here are often added projects that last a day or have little value for Go users.

Rust chose a different policy:

https://github.com/rust-unofficial/awesome-rust/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md:

If you want to add an entry to the README.md please consider this:

is the entry valuable to people trying to get things done in Rust?
In order to make this objective, the entry needs to either have at least 50 stars on Github, 2000 downloads on crates.io, or an equivalent level of other popularity metrics (which should be specified in the PR). The maintainers of this repo are not responsible for making your project popular, only for making more people aware of those projects. We don't want to have to pick and choose favourites, and so are using metrics like this to make our lives easier as maintainers.

What do you think?

Can we adopt it too?

Please consider this. 🙏

Thanks. 😃

[phanirithvij]

Awesome-go's policy has

• code review
• reviews code coverage (requirement is 80%)
• lint (and other metrics in goreportcard.com)
• check for thorough documentation
• check for a stable 1.0.0 release
• remove old, abandoned (archived), stale repos (no activity since 1+ years)

I think the above are all objective enough.
They won't limit new project entries because of arbitrary metrics.

These are some things to consider

• What if those 50 stars are meaningless?
  • check Show GitHub star count next to project link. #1213
  • For eg., many people post their projects on Reddit (r/golang, r/rust, etc. for go, rust projects respectively)
  • Maybe the post topic was interesting and people liked the project readme, description, etc.
  • So maybe 50+ people bookmarked the project.
• As for the crates.io 2000+ equivalent, pkg.go.dev has imported by section for each package.
  • A similar 2000+ metric will remove many useful packages from the current list.
• Similar discussions before, Show GitHub star count next to project link. #1213 (comment), A copy of this list with number of stars/forks/issues provided #1931

[a5r0n]

the buttom line is, when develeopr is looking on a long list of projects, without any sort of ranking he just lost in the ocean, and the list is useless.

when i go to web page with 10+ projects, i will defintly not going to check every single one of them.
we need some way to get any sense of success/popularity to get any value from awesome lists.
stars are fine, imports too, anything that can help us to decide what to check first.

[phanirithvij]

I am of the same opinion, this is like Yahoo curated page before the invention of a search engine like Google. The sort/filter etc features are only possible in a website but not the readme file. I guess the website needs to be improved rather than show stars etc in the readme. So a daily cron job, GitHub action to fetch info and save in db and show it in site using js. (scoop search by rasa works this way)

…

________________________________ From: a5r0n ***@***.***> Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2023 2:09:50 PM To: avelino/awesome-go ***@***.***> Cc: Phani Rithvij ***@***.***>; Comment ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [avelino/awesome-go] Can we adopt a new policy? (Issue #4244) the buttom line is, when develeopr is looking on a long list of projects, without any sort of ranking he just lost in the ocean, and the list is useless. when i go to web page with 10+ projects, i will defintly not going to check every single one of them. we need some way to get any sense of success/popularity to get any value from awesome lists. stars are fine, imports too, anything that can help us to decide what to check first. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#4244 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHCBL6QCZ77AOAMHFCITVD3YKKP5NAVCNFSM5XRUY56KU5DIOJSWCZC7NNSXTN2JONZXKZKDN5WW2ZLOOQ5TCOBWGQYDOMJUGUYQ>. You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID: ***@***.***>