#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@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