Evaluate textual as an urwid replacement
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
type: discussion
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 3.1k
- Forks
- 233
- Avg merge
- 1h 44m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 1
Description
We currently use urwid for ikhal and while it works fine, its development seems to have stalled. On the other hand, a new contender for the same space has emerged: textual. Textual promises to be faster and have better maintenance (two full time developers).
We should evaluate what advantages textual has and if the work of porting ikhal to textual is worth it.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start at ikhal and compare its current urwid usage with textual's documented capabilities and maintenance model. Evaluate the advantages and effort of a textual port, then record whether replacing urwid is worthwhile and why.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- python
- Domain
- cli
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100