Roadmap

[KaneFreeman]

Future (TBD)

• Add documentation for non-Netlify Deployment #48
• Media library folders should not be requested from git #827
• On Change Event collapses list again after data insight has been modified #1049
• Gatsby develop fails static-cms-gatsby-netlify-template#38
• Widgets Repo #1048
• Relation Widget, support creation of record #295
• Feature request: query referenced entries for use troughout the app, not just by relation widget. #632
• Update Gitea backend to work with editorial workflow #1047
• Custom Formatter #484
• [Folders] Drag and drop items between folders #784
• Alternative multiple_folders option for i18n structure #973

[CamilleScholtz]

Great project! Why remove the editorial workflow though, I always found this feature very useful!

[KaneFreeman]

Great project! Why remove the editorial workflow though, I always found this feature very useful!

Great question, that has a long answer.

So the idea of an editorial workflow is great, but the implementation as it was, was not great. It effectively split each backend implementation (or at least the ones that even had it implemented) into two completely different modules, with the editorial workflow side taking way more code to achieve. It also split the UI in many places into two separate setups.

All of that added up to a lot of complexity that slows down future enhancements to the project, as well as increasing the possibility of bugs.

I believe the editorial workflow can and should be handled outside of the core application. I am planning to creating a guide and some templates to show how to achieve a similar result without the extra bulk the previous setup brought. This approach will also allow for far greater customization of the editorial workflow.

[ryangittings]

Following along on this! Hoping for a supported CMS with this setup. Quick question - will there be CDN support for quick installation?

[KaneFreeman]

Following along on this! Hoping for a supported CMS with this setup. Quick question - will there be CDN support for quick installation?

Yes I am planning on supporting that still. From that front little will change at first.

[geotrev]

Would love to contribute. thanks for making this fork! will look over the changes since the fork and pull in the changes i already proposed over in the original repo. cheers.

[KaneFreeman]

Would love to contribute. thanks for making this fork! will look over the changes since the fork and pull in the changes i already proposed over in the original repo. cheers.

That would be awesome! Right now the main branch is pretty much a modified version I am using in another project. I am working on a bigger upgrade / rewrite of the repo into TypeScript. There is still a lot to work to do on the rewrite (its very much broken at the moment), but you can see the progress in this branch: https://github.com/StaticJsCMS/static-cms/tree/feature/typescript-conversion

[geotrev]

Would love to contribute. thanks for making this fork! will look over the changes since the fork and pull in the changes i already proposed over in the original repo. cheers.

That would be awesome! Right now the main branch is pretty much a modified version I am using in another project. I am working on a bigger upgrade / rewrite of the repo into TypeScript. There is still a lot to work to do on the rewrite (its very much broken at the moment), but you can see the progress in this branch: https://github.com/StaticJsCMS/static-cms/tree/feature/typescript-conversion

Very cool. Happy to wait for those changes to land, or add on top, whatever slows you down the least. :)

[qbeauperin]

Thank you for taking things into your own hands and making this fork, I'm very much looking forward to the first stable version so that the newbie that I am can start helping out. 🙌

[mildred]

Thanks a lot for picking this up and cleaning up the code.

May I suggest to look for PRs of the original Netlify repo, I'm thinking in particular of decaporg/decap-cms#4670 which improves the media library allowing to have subfolders. There is a specific implementation at GitHub GraphQL library but I don't see why it needs a specific backend implementation instead of using the existing backend features.

[airtonix]

Great project! Why remove the editorial workflow though, I always found this feature very useful!

Great question, that has a long answer.
...
I believe the editorial workflow can and should be handled outside of the core application. I am planning to creating a guide and some templates to show how to achieve a similar result without the extra bulk the previous setup brought. This approach will also allow for far greater customization of the editorial workflow.

I might be ignorant, but without editorial workflow, how does a user stage a bunch of changes to various documents before publishing?