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

On 25 October 2011 20:17, Ketil Malde wrote:

Ivan Lazar Miljenovic 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@gmail.com IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com