Weave Code
Weaver
Helps Laravel developers discover, compare, and choose open-source packages. See popularity, security, maintainers, and scores at a glance to make better decisions.
Feedback
Share your thoughts, report bugs, or suggest improvements.
Subject
Message

Statamic Form Submission Retention Laravel Package

wearejust/statamic-form-submission-retention

A Statamic addon that automatically prunes old form submissions using configurable retention rules. Set retention periods per form, schedule cleanup, and keep your database tidy, compliant, and free of unnecessary storage growth without manual work.

View on GitHub
Deep Wiki
Context7

Product Decisions This Supports

  • Build vs. buy gate, not a roadmap input (yet). The 1.0.0 release carries no capability description, changelog detail, migration notes, or linked documentation — only a milestone announcement. The decision this supports today is a triage decision: whether to spend discovery time on it, not whether to standardize on it.
  • Where a first stable release typically earns its keep — the categories worth scoring once the package is identified: replacing bespoke in-house glue code, removing a fork we maintain ourselves, or accelerating a scoped feature on the near-term roadmap.
  • Stability signal, not a feature signal. The meaningful fact in a 1.0.0 tag is the implied semver commitment: post-1.0, breaking changes should arrive as a 2.0.0. That is a dependency-risk input for platform planning, and it is the one claim in this release we can actually evaluate.
  • Do not let it into the roadmap on the strength of the version number alone. A 1.0.0 with an empty release body is as likely to be a hobby project's first tag as a production-ready package. Treat it as unclassified until the checklist below is answered.
  • Decisions this explicitly does not support: capacity allocation, vendor/procurement approval, or any commitment to migrate existing services.

When to Consider This Package

Adopt-candidate criteria — all should hold before a spike:

  • composer.json declares an explicit illuminate/* / laravel/framework constraint covering the Laravel major you run, and a php constraint covering your runtime. Anything as loose as * or >=5.0 is a red flag.
  • Service provider and facade are auto-discovered; no manual config/app.php wiring required.
  • A LICENSE file exists and is compatible with your distribution model (MIT/Apache-2.0 vs. proprietary or SSPL).
  • Tests exist and run in CI on a visible matrix, not just "works on my machine."
  • A documented security disclosure path (SECURITY.md or equivalent), and composer audit is clean on install.
  • Transitive dependency footprint is small — check composer why before it lands in a service you have to patch on a deadline.
  • If you consumed a pre-1.0 tag, an upgrade/migration note exists for the 0.x → 1.0 jump.

Look elsewhere when:

  • The package duplicates a first-party Laravel capability (queues, notifications, broadcasting, auth scaffolding, HTTP client) — first-party always wins on upgrade-path risk.
  • Only pre-1.0 tags exist, or the 1.0.0 is the sole release with no stated support policy.
  • The maintainer is a single unaffiliated individual with no release in 12+ months and no response on issues — you are effectively adopting a fork you will own.
  • Pinned to an older Laravel major with no stated upgrade intent.
  • Documentation is a README with no usage examples, no configuration reference, and no error-path guidance.
  • Unclear or restrictive licensing.

Note on this release: because the announcement contains no feature, deprecation, or breaking-change content, none of the above can be confirmed from the release itself. The assessment stays at triage until package metadata is reviewed.

How to Pitch It (Stakeholders)

To executives: A Laravel package in our ecosystem just published its first stable release. The version number is a stability signal — it suggests the maintainer intends to honor semantic versioning going forward — but the release note itself tells us nothing about what the package does or whether it fits our stack. Recommendation is a small, time-boxed engineering spike to answer that, not a platform decision. Cost of finding out is low; cost of adopting blind and later owning an abandoned dependency is not.

To engineering: Read the release as a version milestone only. Before any prototype, confirm Laravel/PHP constraint compatibility with our supported matrix, that auto-discovery works, that CI and a license are present, and that the dependency graph is thin. Report back on whether it replaces code we currently maintain ourselves — that is the only case where the ROI is obvious. If it duplicates something Laravel ships, we stop there.

Weaver

How can I help you explore Laravel packages today?

Conversation history is not saved when not logged in.
Prompt
Add packages to context
No packages found.
htinlynn/genius-helper
maco-studios/hephaestus
elmogy/larafast
xeviant/laravel-paystack
gorilladash/laravel-website-sdk
martialbe/flysystem-oss
chondal/3312client
jeroen-g/flickr
opscale-co/nova-genbi
itsjustvita/laravel-retention
tequilarapido/trackit
gregsphotography/site-builder-filament
cabaoctavio/laravel-query-log
gregsphotography/site-builder-components
io-digital/clickatell
snowsoft/laravel-admin
oxygen/auth
relicsoftware/barakah-payment-gateway
tobya/work-with-composer
equipc/laravel-email-validator