On 7 June 2011 15:05, James Cook <mo...@deepbondi.net> wrote: > It's good, in my opinion, to be able to state succinctly in a standardized > way that, although it does something now, what the code does and how it does > it are probably going to change in the future. >
I think no one really updates this field and it's a human factor that could otherwise be generated by Hackage reliably. I'm using many packages that are "experimental" or "unstable" that've been stable for a year or more. The field is mostly useless to me. The stability of a package can be judged based on how often the versions bump up based on the PVP and/or the exports of the package change, that is something Hackage could trivially do. Agreed, the naming is also ambiguous, “API stability” seems more straight-forward.
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
