[Haskell-cafe] Package documentation complaints -- and a suggestion

[Ivan Lazar Miljenovic]

On 25 October 2011 20:17, Ketil Malde <ketil at malde.org> wrote:
> Ivan Lazar Miljenovic <ivan.miljenovic at gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Right, but first we need to define what all those terms _mean_... and
>> it's no good saying your package is "stable" if you change the API in
>> a large-scale fashion every release.
>
> I think there are better criteria to use, like:
>
> - do exported definition have Haddock comments?
> - does the package have an automated test suite?

What about a test suite that either isn't packaged with the .cabal
file or doesn't use Cabal's new test-suite architecture?  Does the
fact that it _has_ a test suite tell you it's rigorous?

-- 
Ivan Lazar Miljenovic
Ivan.Miljenovic at gmail.com
IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com