---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Braden Shepherdson <braden.shepherdson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: [xmonad] Unmarking modules 'Unstable' in contrib
To: Brent Yorgey <
byorgey@seas.upenn.edu>
Even when our modules do change, they almost always change in a backward-compatible way, since we try to avoid breaking configs.
This sounds fine to me.
Braden Shepherdson
shepheb
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Brent Yorgey
<byorgey@seas.upenn.edu> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 08:10:52PM -0400, Adam Vogt wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Most (152/159) modules are marked as unstable in contrib. A good number of
> these 'unstable' modules have not been modified since a number of releases.
>
> Here's a rough total number of modules with a last-modified date (per year):
>
> > (for x in `find .`; do; (darcs changes $x | tail -n 2 | head -n 1); done) > lastmod
> > for x in {2007,2008,2009}; do; grep $x lastmod | wc -l; done
> 64
> 43
> 17
>
> I wouldn't trust those numbers, since the total falls short of 159, but the
> point still stands: many so-called unstable modules have not changed in a
> long time, which could make it difficult for users to avoid modules that
> may actually change.
>
> Does anybody mind if I change the oldest modules (unchanged since 1.5
> years) to be stable?
Sounds good to me. I think most of the 'unstable' designations are
because of cargo-culting someone else's module comments. That and the
fact that by definition you would only change the stability
designation when you are not changing anything. No one ever thinks
"gee, it's been 6 months since I even thought about that module,
better go back and change it to 'stable'". =)
-Brent