Future of C4-PlantUML about c4-plantuml HOT 21 CLOSED

I've now transfered both libs and give the @plantuml-stdlib owners write rights in both

I would suggest to not add more people to the core team at this current stage and start with working on it.

from c4-plantuml.

Hi, I would really like to join this, I strongly believe that this repo deserves a new live and I appreciate you including me 😊. I will come back to this tomorrow morning, I'm a bit broken tonight.

from c4-plantuml.

I've already created https://github.com/C4-PlantUML

Any idea how you would like the main repo be named?

If @adrianvlupu would like to join - I could also imagine that https://github.com/adrianvlupu/C4-Builder will be part of the new organization.

Let's wait 3 days for feedback from all others coming in,

from c4-plantuml.

Taking a look into all forks, their activity and #80 - I would personally favor:

• taking @adrianvlupu fork as the new starting point
• adding for the same reason @adrianvlupu as contributor
• adding @IOrlandoni as contributor for the ideas of automation and verifiction
• adding @aheil as contributor for making sure that other PlantUML libs align and the idea and documentation is also aligned to newcomers and students

Please let me know what you all think about that and if you would accept it.

from c4-plantuml.

Hi,

About "...most used / future ready fork":
Changes from my fork are used daily by multiple developer teams in my work.
The most significant change is rewriting @RicardoNiepel C4-PlantUML to latest PlantUML preprocessor.
Additional enhancements are results of my struggles and my coworkers feedback when we were visualising enterprise level commercial systems. They are:

• Person icon in personas box
• External container and component
• Live Templates for IntelliJ

Please put under consideration changes made on that fork as potentially small step for "future ready" solution.

from c4-plantuml.

Hi, I'm working on collecting useful additions to the library right now and will be merging it back in the official repository.

from c4-plantuml.

As @IOrlandoni stated

If we let the discussion grow, we'll never come up with a final/perfect decision on all the topics.

It might be worth creating separate issues for follow-up actions, as not everyone needs to be involved with each item.

Regarding an org name, why not just use plantuml-stdlib? I've just created plantuml-stdlib org and added everyone from this thread as "owner", in case you like the name all you need to do is accept the invitation.

Regarding the other topics, paraphrasing from @RicardoNiepel's original post:

1. adding two additional contributors to the project

Resolved by "adding@adrianvlupu, @IOrlandoni, and @aheil as contributor"

2. choosing (and aligning with the owner - should in my view one of the contribs above) one fork and merging everything back

Might be worth having a separate discussion about somewhere other than in this ticket? As this will take some to-and-fro to get all the changes aligned. In case people don't have a problem with the plantuml-stdlib org idea, I've started a discussion here: https://github.com/orgs/plantuml-stdlib/teams/owners/discussions/1

3. add the usage of GitHub Actions for creating the samples and verifying the lib

Make a separate ticket?

4. updating C4-PlantUML in the PlantUML Standard Library

Out of scope for this repo, but I have created plantuml/plantuml-stdlib#31.

5. after that also applying the same to https://github.com/RicardoNiepel/Azure-PlantUML/

Pick org name, move repo.

6. Which is the most used / future ready fork and would love to be also a contributor?

Same as item 2.

7. Who wants to be one of the additional contributors?

Same as item 1.

@adrianvlupu Regarding tags and releases, either works fine. As long as any versioning is used it'll work to automate things.

from c4-plantuml.

Hey,

I'm a constant user of both projects. It's what I use during calls/presentations to quickly illustrate what we talk about as a group with developers, executives, etc.

I'd be happy to bring over the automation from my repo (here and to Azure-PlantUML) and be a contributor in general to both projects.

I'd also suggest we do that first and quickly, so all other changes go through the automated tests and re-generation of diagrams.

Thanks!

from c4-plantuml.

First of all: No need to apologise @RicardoNiepel, we all know the struggles of open-source. Supercool to see some action on this!

Regarding chat/communication, if GitHub issues prove to be too troublesome for this, maybe Github Team Discussions would be a good match for now? (At least until something more full-featured is needed).

Next, to avoid divise effort or conflicting interest, one of the things that will need to be decided is whether the GitHub organisation is more C4 or more PlantUML oriented.

The reason for saying this is that the mention of RicardoNiepel/Azure-PlantUML would suggest making a PlantUML centric org but the mention of adrianvlupu/C4-Builder would suggest a more C4 centric one.

As-is C4-PlantUML/C4-PlantUML would make sense but C4-PlantUML/Azure-PlantUML and C4-PlantUML/C4-Builder less so...

from c4-plantuml.

I kind of like the idea of the plantuml-stdlib org. I could also add my project (https://github.com/aheil/EIP-PlantUML) to this one.

from c4-plantuml.

Great to see this conversation happening!

Earlier this year when I had some free time, based on discussions with Arnaud, I did some thinking/playing/writing about standardising Plantuml stdlib to elicit feedback i.e. https://crashedmind.github.io/PlantUMLHitchhikersGuide/Stdlib/stdlibRequirements.html which e.g. suggested the keyword arguments should be used in new libraries, what macro fields should be supported etc... Other sections of the guide on using/abusing the preprocessor :)

Would this be part of the scope you're considering?

Either way, I'm interested in contributing.

P.S. I don't have access to plantuml-stdlib org.

from c4-plantuml.

@RicardoNiepel I suggest you should, as a first step, transfer ownership of the repo to an organization so the projects can out-grow the limitations of being a personal repository, as @Potherca suggested in #80, giving bats-core as an example of that transition. From there we could work on establishing a way to communicate (slack?), choosing a fork, merging, and moving forward.

from c4-plantuml.

Thanks for adding me here. As @Potherca says, there is no need to apologize. Moving forward this project to a community project is a great step forward.

I am happy if we can consolidate all the contributions in various forks into one project. That's by the way one of the major issues when someone starts with this lib, that they used different works. This happened even to my students even if I pointed the to this particular repo. Said that I introduce the C4 model and C4-PlantUML to three of my courses, which are in sum about 200-300 students each year. About every 6 months, we will have a huge batch of "new" users. And I am happing to upgrading my lectures and tutorials on a regular basis to the latest versions.

from c4-plantuml.

Hi again,

@Potherca

Next, to avoid divise effort or conflicting interest, one of the things that will need to be decided is whether the GitHub organisation is more C4 or more PlantUML oriented.

You are right. Regarding the naming, If @RicardoNiepel adds Azure-PlantUML I think the organization can be called PlantUML-Libraries or something like that. I don't insist on adding C4-Builder, it's a small tool that just relies on C4-PlantUML to be stable and work with different versions of PlantUML.

Btw, regarding tags and releases, does it need to be v1.0.0, v1.0.1 etc, or can they be named by the PlantUML version they are compatible with (1.2020.19)?

@stawirej
Check out my fork, it includes many of the changes in your repo that make it compatible with different versions of PlantUml. It's been stable for the last year. Not trying to fight for what fork is better, as long as there is a central repo, I'm happy.
Maybe we can merge commits regarding IntelliJ templates and external components/containers if it's something people use. The reason why I didn't add more external entities was the metamodel of C4.

@IOrlandoni
Cool thing with the visual testing, I've been living in a cave.

@aheil and @stawirej
It's nice to see there are so many people using this, I'm sure we can come up with many improvements to the library.

Edit:

Failed to mention I have no experience with github organizations/projects like this so I don't want to come across as confident.

from c4-plantuml.

Hey, guys.

The discussion now grew to the following topics.

• Organization focus
• Release/versioning strategy.
• Fork choice
• Communication channel

I have opinions on the matters but... does it really matter for now? We just have to get the project started and setup the right places for those discussions. We don't need to come up with the perfect solution to everything before we move forward.

The focus of each of the repos (C4-PlantUML and Azure-PlantUML) is clear. The focus of the organization will be decided as we move forward and we're free to move repos in and out of the organization as we please.

I do have some experience with open source projects and I think the most important thing is that we move forward. If we let the discussion grow, we'll never come up with a final/perfect decision on all the topics.

I suggest we keep the scope of the discussion to how do we start this. Not how we maintain it over the following weeks, months, years. I think that what we must agree on now is just:

• Everyone OK with transferring both repos to the organization? Any problem that you can think of that this will bring?
• Everyone OK with communicating through GH team discussions? Any better/easier suggestions?

Again, these are starting points, and just starting points. We'll setup the proper channels to have the following discussions, and start agreeing on other topics and continue moving forward.

from c4-plantuml.

Same for me - love the idea of plantuml-stdlib org.

The only thing in my mind: as we cannot speak about what will be "stdlib" maybe "plantuml-libs"?

And do we have a GO from the PlantUML creator regarding the name collision?

I would transfer C4 and Azure PlantUML libs.

from c4-plantuml.

P.S. I don't have access to plantuml-stdlib org.

@Crashedmind You do now 😏

from c4-plantuml.

And do we have a GO from the PlantUML creator regarding the name collision?

@RicardoNiepel We have a "yes"

from c4-plantuml.

I would suggest to not add more people to the core team

@RicardoNiepel Thus far I've just added everyone to the org as "owner", feel free to change that to "member" if things feel too crowded in the ownersphere 👍

from c4-plantuml.

Pardon me if I'm going slightly off-topic.

I'm trying to see which repo/library to use (since I'm looking to use C4 in PlantUML), I've seen plenty of variations (some of which include icons like https://github.com/adrianvlupu/C4-PlantUML and https://github.com/IOrlandoni/C4-PlantUML) but none of the ones made by the new maintainers/core members seems to have been added to this one and I was wondering if any consensus has been made as that what fork/repo ended up being the new starting point?

Also, I noticed https://github.com/C4-PlantUML still exists even tho it was abandoned in favour of https://github.com/plantuml-stdlib (not sure if it's normal or it was just forgotten).

from c4-plantuml.

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

from c4-plantuml.