Product website / Repo
mchapman opened this issue · comments
Thanks for all the work collating all that. It wasn't clear whether you were inviting discussion here on in openhealthhub - hope you don't mind me doing it here.
I would favour having up to two links per product: one to the repo and (optionally) one to the main product website. But when I tried to start doing the research I soon found that it was difficult, as not all product websites have links to the source code repo. Which then begs the question : in what sense are they open?
Would welcome views, and am prepared to do some of the leg work when clarity emerges.
Having seperate links does make sense. I'll start the work for it;)
And to your question about openness, if there isnt source repo/clear licence/community I wouldnt consider it "open". For instance, what do you think about this http://www.openempi.org/
Well I can't find any links to a repo. There is a news item about an AMI, and if you dug around in there you may find some source code? But I wouldn't include it in the list I think. As to your criteria I would agree with the first 2 (repo / open source licence) for inclusion, and publish some metric(s) on the community, but a community should not be a pre-requisite in my opinion.
@mchapman I'm not sure we need multiple links per entry because:
- This is not a pattern with the various
awesome-repos on Github - It may be easy to find the project page/user documentation for a given project
Feel free to refute these points. I'm not 100% on one side.
@kakoni I just entered https://kenai.com/jira/browse/OPENEMPI-92 for OpenEMPI. Hoping they address this because it's a neat project.
Thanks,
Matthew
Agree with @MatthewVita, we'll continue with the familar awesome- repo format.
Just so this doesn't seem subjective: I put in a pull request to the master awesome repo. They have very specific criteria for lists and one of those items is one link per entry.