[Hackage] #265: Cabal field stability not useful

[Hackage]

#265: Cabal field stability not useful
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
  Reporter:  guest          |        Owner:         
      Type:  defect         |       Status:  new    
  Priority:  low            |    Milestone:  _|_    
 Component:  Cabal library  |      Version:  1.2.3.0
  Severity:  minor          |   Resolution:         
  Keywords:                 |   Difficulty:  normal 
Ghcversion:  6.8.2          |     Platform:         
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Comment (by Isaac Dupree):

 It's easy to measure feature-completeness before release.  It's reasonably
 possible to estimate stability before release, though it can always become
 more or less stable than you expected (especially with different compiler
 versions?).  It's nearly impossible to determine whether critical security
 flaws will be found in a release of software, which should certainly be
 marked for any version of a package that has those flaws.  Some of these
 things should ideally should be marked (on Hackage?), separately from the
 actual tarball / .cabal, because that obviously can't be amended for a
 version that already exists.

 As for words: "Unstable" could mean that there are likely to be breaking
 changes in the interface... or it more likely refers to likelihood for
 that particular version to have bugs. And then Alpha/Beta/etc. conflates
 feature-completeness and interface stability? Well, at least those tend to
 go together in good software development... or not, considering Data.Map
 etc. still getting libraries at h.o fixes.  "mostly dead" is not necessarily
 a bad thing or a bad description :-)

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/hackage/ticket/265#comment:6>
Hackage <http://haskell.org/cabal/>
Hackage: Cabal and related projects