Is this project dead? #812
Comments
|
The lack of response has me worried. |
|
After about a year of no activity after the first major release, I asked this: About six months ago they said priorities would shift back to Foundation for Apps but we never saw a release after that. I'm not confident this will go anywhere... will need to transition my project to something else before we release. Anyone have any good suggestions? |
|
I've ported most of angular-foundation to foundation 6: http://circlingthesun.github.io/angular-foundation-6/ |
|
It's unfortunate this framework isn't receiving the attention it needs. My company is heavily invested in Foundation 4 Apps and there is no way of switching away from it. Because of this, I've had to take the initiative of fixing framework related issues myself. A large number of these fixes have been sitting in PRs for months. In order to release quality apps, I've had to use a fork of this framework where I can make necessary fixes. That fork is https://github.com/fiboacademy/foundation-apps/tree/fibo-master. I've been using the framework in production for over a year and really love it, just wish I didn't have to maintain the framework myself. |
|
Our UX designer used foundation for apps to prototype our latest app. Imagine my excitement when I realized I could just use these prototypes pretty much as-is, saving me a lot of work. This excitement was short lived though, as I quickly began to run into a lot of the same issues that have been submitted here. Five months without a commit is not a good sign. It's unfortunate because there is so much potential here. |
|
Also commented "this repo seems to be dead", back in October in #710 (comment) At the time we had been waiting for months to see basic fixes being merged. They are good at promoting their framework and making parties to launch it, but maintaining it is another story... Also invested way too much time to switch to it, now trying to get rid of it since last summer. |
|
Somewhere I heard a rumor about a version 2 that they heavily work on, that should be more compatible with foundation-sites 6 and use angular 2. But maybe this also was just something of a dream :D |
|
This is such a great and unique framework. Fell in love with it at first sight. Now the Web will look all the more like Material Design... |
|
truth is this is a company owned open-source project and most of contributors behind this project, even contributors who worked in the last released version (1.3) or talked about angular2 are not working with ZURB anymore according to their public personal pages or last github public activities. sadly this is the best front-end framework I ever used but it doesn't belong to its creators or any community. I just wish the owners to not let it die. |
|
I was about to start a really big project with this, but I looked at the git changes history and I was scared... The circlingthesun suggestion, looks a good bet, but is not yet fully converted. I think I will need to find another framework to work with. Does any one recommend any using angularjs? I'm looking for something not "close", flexible, with all the basic components and that could be easily editable... |
|
@napcat, most angular-foundation components have now been ported to angular-foundation-6. Only ones outstanding is interchange and typeahead. Typeahead was never implemented in the original foundation and interchange should not be big deal. I ported angular-foundation for use in bookem.co.za. I've been running it in production for the last 2 weeks with only minor issues thats now been fixed. If you are looking for another framework, angular-bootstrap (https://angular-ui.github.io/bootstrap/) is quite solid. I can't comment on how malleable the bootstrap css is though. |
|
Clearly quite a few of us love the framework overall and want to see it continue. Perhaps we could take it over if Zurb isn't behind it any more... |
|
I think the best would be to start an Angular 2 Implementation für Foundation 6 jQuery Components. Biggest benefit with very few CSS-Work. |
|
From what I've heard, they are working on a V2 which will integrate with Angular 2 and share styling from Foundation for Sites 6 as @DaSchTour stated. I completely agree with the approach, but that doesn't mean to abandon V1. For those like me that are using V1 in production code, it is important that bug fixes are still made to the framework (especially when some of these fixes are already done and just waiting to be merged). |
|
I second @DaSchTour. This repo needs a big DEPRECATED warning sign slapped on its description and, as a community, we need to start a new fork without the Foundation tag in its name. |
|
If they're working on V2, that's fine... But the lack of communication is extremely unprofessional. |
|
@mattgrande and I are trying to get in touch with Zurb and give everyone an update ...stay tuned. |
|
we need official news from ZURB... we have this framework on production projects... |
|
And now we play the waiting game... https://twitter.com/ZURBfoundation/status/730905798465871874 |
|
Thanks! I'm trying to decide in the next 30 days if I should jump ship to http://circlingthesun.github.io/angular-foundation-6/ or see if this will be brought back from the dead. Sadly it was pretty much dead immediately after the initial announcement years ago... |
|
I wonder how this will go. I really enjoyed developing the original base Angular for the library. |
|
Yes, it's dead. |
|
It's dead, Jim. |
|
Sounds like it's time for the community to take it over? I'm heavily reliant on the framework and can't give it up, so I'll need to maintain it myself anyway. The framework is pretty solid for what its worth (after all the bug fixes I've made). |
|
Does someone from the community have commit rights? Otherwise, its a new fork under a new name. Something with Angular in it. |
|
There is an official communication from zurb about project state? |
|
They have been nearly silent since the first day this was released... and now won't provide updates via direct twitter request and (obviously) the frustration on github. So no, they refuse to respond but happily sucker people in via their website that don't realize that it's been dead since it was released. So it would be great if someone could fork it and at least apply all of the recent pull requests. Was a big Foundation for Sites supporter, but obviously this behavior has soured the angular community.... |
|
A simple fork won't do as we need new npm and bower packages. |
|
@tolyo I still have rights to the project but I don't believe it'd be appropriate for me to contribute. I think an open-source fork would do it. Just do a fork, call it "open-foundation-apps" or If no one is interested in taking on that responsibility, I'd be happy to fork it under a new org name, publish the new packages to bower/npm, manage rights to the new repo and open it to you guys, etc. I just don't have time to actively contribute. In fact, if I can get at least a few people to support showand help me come with a name, we can do this ASAP that way the project can live on in true open source fashion. I have an org that I haven't used in forever called Lernaean and I can fork @soumak77, @tolyo, @HoldenCreative, @tunecino , what do you guys think? |
|
I'm all for getting the process started on migrating this framework away from ZURB. If we're going to maintain an open source version, I wouldn't mind taking that over. I'm actively working on apps which fully depend on the framework, so I would love to see it get the attention it needs. I've been maintaining my own custom build of the framework which is used in all apps I develop at Fibo. These apps have been running in production for over a year and a half, so I trust this build of the framework far more than the current state of the foundation apps master. As such, I would highly suggest using this build as the base for the framework going forward. In terms of org, we could use the FiboAcademy organization where I maintain my custom build and apps. I'm fine with whatever name is chosen, though perhaps something with angular would be appropriate, maybe |
|
@soumak77 I'd do a clean fork and start a community around it. I realize that you're using the new framework but honestly, I did a diff between your fork and the official repo and it's only 300 line addition / 150 line deletions which is pretty skimmable. What we can easily do is when we do the new fork, open a pull request from your repo, and start discussing the changes and if they work for the community. That way some/most/all of your changes can exist in the new official repo and your fork can just get the updates from the new official repo as it needs them. What do you think about the names? |
|
Basically, guys, I'm thinking of an IO.js-style fork of this repo. All I want is a name and we can start the work on this. |
|
The fibo-apps framework is in a private repo. You were just looking at the custom build of foundation which is foundation with my pending PRs accepted. As for name, I'd prefer base over open. |
|
What about angular-base? |
|
my bad! :) I'm not a fan of tying it to just angular in case people with alternatives in other frameworks want to contribute and add. I guess I'm trying to think of having a long-term org that can house dead projects that the community still wants to support. |
|
I was specifically just speaking for the fork name which should always stay angular. Perhaps something like |
|
It would be a good idea to continue with the decoupling of the framework that was started with https://github.com/zurb/front-router and https://github.com/zurb/motion-ui. This would help move in the direction of enabling other front end frameworks, though angular should be the primary focus for now. |
|
Alright, done. https://github.com/base-apps/angular-base I also opened an issue what needs to be done for initial release where we can discuss publishing this. |
|
What is it that set this project apart that it deserves a chance to live on? Its a combination of Angular, a flexbox grid and set of animation components for desktop and mobile. Its primary competitor is Angular Material, which sets a damn high quality bar. So Angular Base it is. |
|
If architected properly, the thing that would set this new framework apart from Angular Material, and others, is to enable cross-framework integration. This way the framework just supports styling and can be leveraged by any javascript framework. If framework specific logic is needed to power the library, which in most cases it will, a |
|
Nice to see this moving forward. @tolyo - I'll add as a UI designer, IMHO the frontend responsive user-flow pattern of modals/overlays/etc. is a particularly good one. I don't see Materialize, Ionic, etc. as a competitor in this regard. Thanks everyone. @mattgrande and I will follow up next week. |
|
Just wanted to update that I've migrated to Angular Material and have no regrets... there honestly is no need for foundation-apps at this point! Do yourself a favor and start migrating today... and hope that someone actually replies and deprecates this project to avoid suckering anyone else in. Goodbye Zurb! |
|
If migrating to Angular Material isn't an option for you, and you want something similar to this, there's a community driven fork here: |
|
@btwolfe79 - Angular Material is a lovely framework, but there are some definitive UI and workflow benefits in F4A. I'm not ready to scrap (all) of yet. Requirements vary. |
|
This project has thought and imagination put into it. It can use additional components, some tests, some architectural changes, a new build and it will scale quite well in the future for dashboard-like apps. Angular Material will just make your app look like a failed implementation of Material design specs, which is btw what most Google sites are. |
|
The majority of the issues with this framework have been resolved as of v1.2.5 from https://github.com/base-apps/angular-base-apps |
|
I talked to Zurb’s lead engineer yesterday evening at a Meetup at Zurb. Foundation for Apps is deprecated. The people who were working on it left the company about a year ago. They are discussing making Foundation 6 plug-ins for Angular, Ember, and React but development is sometime in the future, at least a year away. Zurb’s main product for their clients is design and they deliver 5 html pages with a style guide. They don’t seem to be developing single page apps and didn’t discuss that during the Meetup. I'll move over to Angular Base as others here have done. |
|
Appreciate the update - thanks. |
|
Good to know, thanks! While most of us were waiting for months for updates, the project was already dead... It will be hard to trust Zurb in the future... The Open Source world drawbacks! |
|
As of yesterday Zurb is looking for someone to lead Foundation dev. My guess is that they are losing talent to Google, et al. Not a small issue here in Silicon Valley. They've had to narrow their focus to fit their current resources. |
|
Love that they show up, make five tiny commits, and don't address this at all... |
|
Looks like you and Andrew have some automation setup that is triggering Daniel D'Alonzo | 908-836-4383 http://danieldalonzo.com On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 9:20 PM, Laurent Le Graverend [email protected] wrote: While most of us were waiting for months for updates, the project was already The Open Source world drawbacks! — |
|
Foundation for MeteorJS is broken due to a tiny dependency version needing changed in the package file, however my GH ticket has been sitting for months now. I can't say that I trust Zurb at all. |
|
still dead huh |
|
Hello @cojocaru3 have you checked the community-driven fork https://github.com/base-apps/angular-base-apps#angular-base-apps? |
|
It's dead, Jim. |
The last commit is almost half a year ago...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: