Thanksgeorge2 wrote:This tool looks pretty nice, I'm glad to see someone is working on a library management tool again.
1 - That is not entirely true I'm afraid Your collections contains collections like https://github.com/george2/ahk-libs/tre ... /ahkstdlib (tuncays old collection) or "submodules" like camerbs AHKs which both contain old copies of my TF lib (probably more around if I look further). This proofs my point of having old material out of the control of the original author(s). Also most of the material is NOT available on GH for the reason the author(s) are not (yet) on GH or have decided to post it only on a forum.george2 wrote:Most of the stuff in my GH repo is submodules, meaning it points directly to the upstream source on GitHub. Libraries that exist only on the AHK forums or on AHK.net are more difficult, so there are only a few of these included. I did contact the devs I knew beforehand to make sure they were OK with me posting the libraries in this way, and all of the libraries in this repo have links to the upstream sources included.
2 - If I look at demo version of joedfs GH Repo browser you can already see some other problems with this solution (at this stage that is) from a user perspective: for example, look at the entry for Masterfocus - there is no indication what that "entry" contains. Many GH repos lack useful descriptions apart from the very succinct description you're asked to enter when adding a GH repo, and if it is a collection of scripts as is the case with Masterfocus you're stuck. A GH repo doesn't have a file description - you would have to ask the repo owner to add addtional information in fixed format if you wanted to read meaningful info.
That is why my gut reaction is that this is not the way to go. Can you have a list of useful* libraries, I'm sure you can, but in that regards maul-esel libba.net solution was actually the way to go by giving control and responsibility to the authors. But that solution is very complicated and far beyond most AHK programmers capabilities.
* As hoppfrosch says: who is going to decide whats useful - I never used GDI+ and doubt I will in future to name one example. So it would always be a "recommended" list with some editorial checks.
Of course everyone is welcome to develop a system