Include 3rd party SDKs in sdk-support object?

[ahocevar]

I was wondering if it would be desirable to include 3rd party SDKs like ol-mapbox-style in the sdk-support object. Something like

"sdk-support": {
  "basic functionality": {
    "js": "0.10.0",
    "android": "2.0.1",
    "ios": "2.0.0",
    "macos": "0.1.0",
    "ol-mapbox-style": "1.0.0"
  }
}

The advantage would be an up-to-date information on supported features for those SDKs, and a way for utilities like style editors to only offer features that are supported in the target SDK.

This idea was first discussed in openlayers/ol-mapbox-style#10. An alternative would be to fork the spec, but it might make sense to have this information upstream. If this is not the case, are there any other suggested ways that I might not have thought about?

[tmcw]

I'm not opposed to this idea technically, and think it's much better than implicitly requiring you to fork the project. The chief concern is maintenance, really: with the Mapbox SDKs, we have the ability to ask our coworkers to keep the sdk-support updated, and have the leverage of being coworkers.

If we do start including 3rd party projects, I think we'd need

• An agreement that the support levels of those projects are kept up-to-date on a regular basis
• And if those projects lose maintainership, as too many open source projects do, we remove them from the spec.

[ahocevar]

Thanks for your comment @tmcw. I'd be 100% supportive of the rules you suggest.

For keeping the support levels up to date, we can make update pull requests part of the release process.

If there is general agreement on such a procedure, is there anything I can help with for establishing it?

[lucaswoj]

This issue was moved to mapbox/mapbox-gl-js#4170