[Haskell-cafe] Package documentation complaints -- and a suggestion
qdunkan at gmail.com
Tue Oct 25 16:11:51 CEST 2011
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:17 AM, 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?
> - is the package used by other packages?
> - ...by different authors?
These signals might not apply if the package is primarily a binary.
> - has the package been recently updated?
This one is also tricky. A stable package is a good thing! On the
other hand, a package that is broken by a new version of ghc and then
takes months to be updated is not so great. What matters is
maintainer responsiveness and that's not so easily measurable.
I feel like use-derived signals are safer. E.g. number of downloads,
user ratings, user reviews, depending packages. But that stuff
obviously goes in a separate section, not a .cabal field. With
ratings or reviews it's tricky because you want to make sure they
apply to specific versions, so obsolete complaints about a fixed bug
don't hang around forever.
More information about the Haskell-Cafe