Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

status? README update. #749

Open
jrochkind opened this issue Feb 1, 2016 · 7 comments
Open

status? README update. #749

jrochkind opened this issue Feb 1, 2016 · 7 comments

Comments

@jrochkind
Copy link

The README still says:

What's happening now? We are working on 1.0 version, which will include some API-breaking changes. It should be released about April 2015. Until then we'll continue releasing 0.9.x version with bug fixes.

April 2015 is 9 months ago, of course. This line in the README alarms newcomers to sorcery and gives the impression that it may be unmaintained, abandoned, or otherwise in trouble.

Can you update the README with current views on 1.0 plans/timeline? Thanks!

I don't know if you've considered this, but as sorcery is already widely used in production, very succesfully, perhaps mark the current version 1.0, with future possible breaking changes landing in a 2.0 release?

@ivanreese
Copy link

Yeah, I'm also a bit worried about how quiet this project has gone. It's been working fine for me, save for a few little pains. But with the Rails 5 transition looming, I'm thinking it might be time to switch out how I do auth.

@Ch4s3
Copy link
Contributor

Ch4s3 commented Feb 5, 2016

@ivanreese could be interesting to investigate a community fork if development doesn't pick up in the next month or so.

@arnvald
Copy link
Collaborator

arnvald commented Feb 13, 2016

Hi everyone,

it's true that in the last year not much happened with Sorcery. We had some plans on releasing a new version, but since I haven't been using Sorcery for some time in any project, I don't have so much time to work on it anymore.

I don't think that any community fork is necessary, though - I think if someone's willing to take responsibility for Sorcery, it's ok to use this repository. Noam is not actively developing it anymore, but I'm sure he'll give push access if someone's willing to maintain the project.
So far, though, I've only received one e-mail with offer to help make Sorcery compatible with Rails 5, nobody ever said they would like to commit to Sorcery more long-term.

@hughfm
Copy link

hughfm commented May 10, 2016

Anyone have any more updates on the future of Sorcery? I have really enjoyed using it, but worry about using something that is not being actively maintained. Would love to help out myself but am not quite experienced enough to take on something of this size.

Are there any plans for another release soon, or should I be running directly off master if I want to make use of changes that haven't been included in a release yet?

If people are moving away from Sorcery, does anyone have any suggestions of a good alternative? Something with a similar feature set and level of customizability, etc. I have used Devise and Clearance, and have much preferred the approach taken with Sorcery.

@jrochkind
Copy link
Author

I've found Clearance pretty similar to Sorcery in approach, and have had good experience with it.

@ivanreese
Copy link

I've been listening to the (excellent) podcast The Bike Shed, which has the current maintainer of Clearance as a co-host. He's worked on Clearance a fair bit recently (within the past 6 months), and is apparently trying to move it to a 2.0 in the not-too-distant future.

https://github.com/thoughtbot/clearance/
https://github.com/derekprior

@hughfm
Copy link

hughfm commented May 11, 2016

Thanks guys, yep Clearance is looking pretty good.

It is nice to be able to assemble your own authentication & sign up flows when you are dealing with things that are outside the 'standard' box. I like how Sorcery provides the building blocks to do that relatively easily...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants