Move y0hy0h/ordered-containers to elm-community/ordered-containers

[j-maas]

I'd like to request my repository ordered-containers to be moved to elm-community.

Note that the above links to a branch on which I have reworked the code to merge with https://github.com/wittjosiah/elm-ordered-dict and also to explicitly documented handling of re-insertion. The goal would be to publish that branch as elm-community/ordered-containers v1.0.0.

I have added myself as the maintainer. But if someone else is interested, they can gladly take that role!

[pzp1997]

There is an open discussion in #74 about which kinds of packages should belong in elm-community. The most recent example where this has practically played out is #98. Given this context, why do you want to move ordered-containers to elm-community?

[j-maas]

Thanks for the links! They provide some more dimensions to the goals of this project that I hadn't thought about before.

To be honest, I think the idea came mostly to alleviate my maintainership burden. I don't believe that there is much potential for innovation with this package (and thus it probably doesn't fit the community-driven bullet point) and it does not appear to be widely used. I felt that it might fit with the dict-extra package, though.

My concern was mostly what originally happened to rnon's ordered-containers; that I had to fork it and publish a separate package to make it available for Elm 0.19. I hoped by moving it here, such a hand-over would be smoother. I am also willing to transfer the maintainership to someone, if someone wants it, which seems much simpler here.

However, I understand that there are reasons that speak against including the package here; the elm-community packages have a certain "official" feel and it won't magically assign a maintainer to every repo.

For some reason, I also didn't phrase the PR like I initially intended: I wasn't too sure about the inclusion myself and am open to hosting it on my handle, since I don't expect much maintainership anyway. So I'll let you guys have the final word on this! Either way is ok with me.

[j-maas]

Have you decided already on what path you prefer? :)

[pzp1997]

Sorry, just to be clear I do not represent elm-community in any official capacity. Personally, I am against moving ordered-containers to elm-community because I do not think it is evident that it is "the one right solution" to the problem of ordered data structures. For instance, a package that I authored called assoc-list also solves the ordered dictionary problem and people have created derivatives of it to solve the ordered set problem. Curious to hear other people's opinions on this matter though.

[j-maas]

Absolutely! After this discussion I also feel that the package does not fit the goal of elm-community providing a kind of "standard" for packages. It would only really fit the shared-maintainership part. And since the maintainership is probably not that bothersome, I am totally fine not integrating it here.

For the time being, I'll simply publish a new major version.

I'll still leave this open for a "official" decision, which might exemplify the issues in #74.