Re: [Haskell-cafe] Package documentation complaints -- and a suggestion
> The problem isn't social pressure to be stable, it's the ambiguity of what > "stable" means. If Hackage 2 institutes a policy whereby things claiming to > be stable are treated better, then "stable" is likely to become the new > "experimental". I'd say, rather than rely on social agreement on what terms mean, let's just collect lots of automated metrics, and present them as extra information on the hackage pages. At work, we have all modules scored by hlint metrics, and doclint metrics. (Doclint complains about modules without a module header comment, and type signatures without haddock comments.) We count infractions and have a "top ten" hall-of-shame, as well as placing the scores in the module documentation itself. We also have a "fingerprint" for every release (basically the API type signatures), and the size of fingerprint-diffs between releases is a rough measure of API-churn. Some of these measures are designed to place social pressure on authors to improve their code/documentation, but they have a dual role in allowing users to get a feel for the quality of the code they are using, without imposing any external hierarchy on which metrics are more important in any given situation. Regards, Malcolm ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Package documentation complaints -- and a suggestion
On 10/25/11 3:54 AM, Gregory Collins wrote: On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:34 AM, wren ng thornton wrote: I'm not so sure about that exemption. The "experimental" stability level seems to be the norm on Hackage and often means "I use this for real projects, but because I use it for real projects I'm not quite willing to hammer the API in stone just yet". ... Before dealing with automatic documentation requirements, perhaps it'd be better to develop a standard consensus on the terms used in the stability field and actively advocating for people to adopt it, as was done with the PVP. I think there's no need to cajole people into it -- if Hackage 2 puts "stable" packages on a different / better list, there's your social pressure. Right now the stability flag in the .cabal file, as you pointed out, is almost completely content-free. The problem isn't social pressure to be stable, it's the ambiguity of what "stable" means. If Hackage 2 institutes a policy whereby things claiming to be stable are treated better, then "stable" is likely to become the new "experimental". Just because I call something stable doesn't mean that it is. Just because I give something enough documentation so appease the bots so that I'm allowed to call it stable doesn't mean that it is. Frankly, giving a one-line synopsis of what a function does isn't a high enough barrier to entry to keep someone from abusing the system in order to self-select which index page they get put on. The only way to get a consensus about what "stable", "experimental", etc mean is ...to get a consensus about what they mean. It's exactly the same thing as the PVP: in order to get people to agree about what version increments mean, we need to get them to agree to mean whatever it is everybody else thinks they mean. Automating the verification of that agreement is a nice tool to have to hand, but it's meaningless without the agreement about what we're all engaged in. -- Live well, ~wren ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Package documentation complaints -- and a suggestion
Max Rabkin writes: > This is useful information, but to call it "stability" is not only > misleading, but it also prevents the package from using that field to > indicate whether or not it is stable! Oh, right - I'm not much interested in the stability of a package. What I want to know, is which package to choose for some purpose. By highlighting stuff that is correlated with usefulness, I'll be able to make a quicker, more informed decision. Separating this from stability is a feature, not a bug, since it frees the author to label the package stable or not - instead of encouraging using "stable" to mean "please use". :-) -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Package documentation complaints -- and a suggestion
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 2:17 AM, 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? > - 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. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
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.miljeno...@gmail.com IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Package documentation complaints -- and a suggestion
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:17, 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? > - is the package used by other packages? > - ...by different authors? > - has the package been recently updated? This is useful information, but to call it "stability" is not only misleading, but it also prevents the package from using that field to indicate whether or not it is stable! --Max ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Package documentation complaints -- and a suggestion
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? - is the package used by other packages? - ...by different authors? - has the package been recently updated? I'm sure there are other things as well that could be added. If this could be automatically checked, and displayed alongside the package name on Hackage (perhaps as adding one star per checklist item), it would encourage authors to actually improve their packages, rather than just label them "stable". -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Package documentation complaints -- and a suggestion
On 25 October 2011 18:54, Gregory Collins wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:34 AM, wren ng thornton wrote: >> I'm not so sure about that exemption. The "experimental" stability level >> seems to be the norm on Hackage and often means "I use this for real >> projects, but because I use it for real projects I'm not quite willing to >> hammer the API in stone just yet". >> >> ... >> >> Before dealing with automatic documentation requirements, perhaps it'd be >> better to develop a standard consensus on the terms used in the stability >> field and actively advocating for people to adopt it, as was done with the >> PVP. > > I think there's no need to cajole people into it -- if Hackage 2 puts > "stable" packages on a different / better list, there's your social > pressure. Right now the stability flag in the .cabal file, as you > pointed out, is almost completely content-free. 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. Also, by promoting packages that are self-picked as stable, this could stop people from picking a better package just because the maintainer is honest enough to state that they're still working on it... I mean, if base and containers keep changing, what can we _really_ say is a stable package? -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Package documentation complaints -- and a suggestion
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:34 AM, wren ng thornton wrote: > I'm not so sure about that exemption. The "experimental" stability level > seems to be the norm on Hackage and often means "I use this for real > projects, but because I use it for real projects I'm not quite willing to > hammer the API in stone just yet". > > ... > > Before dealing with automatic documentation requirements, perhaps it'd be > better to develop a standard consensus on the terms used in the stability > field and actively advocating for people to adopt it, as was done with the > PVP. I think there's no need to cajole people into it -- if Hackage 2 puts "stable" packages on a different / better list, there's your social pressure. Right now the stability flag in the .cabal file, as you pointed out, is almost completely content-free. G -- Gregory Collins ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Package documentation complaints -- and a suggestion
On 25 October 2011 13:34, wren ng thornton wrote: > Before dealing with automatic documentation requirements, perhaps it'd be > better to develop a standard consensus on the terms used in the stability > field and actively advocating for people to adopt it, as was done with the > PVP. +1, not to mention all the to-level fields available in Haddock (portable, etc.) as well. -- Ivan Lazar Miljenovic ivan.miljeno...@gmail.com IvanMiljenovic.wordpress.com ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Package documentation complaints -- and a suggestion
On 10/24/11 12:34 PM, Gregory Collins wrote: Examples could include: "Your package lacks a description", "more than X% of your modules lack toplevel module comments", "fewer than Y% of your toplevel exports have haddock comments", etc... Packages with stability=experimental would probably be exempt from the requirements. I'm not so sure about that exemption. The "experimental" stability level seems to be the norm on Hackage and often means "I use this for real projects, but because I use it for real projects I'm not quite willing to hammer the API in stone just yet". Surely we should distinguish this level of stability from "no seriously I'm just goofing around with category theory", but unfortunately both classes of project are called "experimental". While the latter may deserve a pass (to encourage goofing around with category theory :), the lack of documentation for the former seems to me like the main motivation for instituting such an automatic system in the first place. Before dealing with automatic documentation requirements, perhaps it'd be better to develop a standard consensus on the terms used in the stability field and actively advocating for people to adopt it, as was done with the PVP. -- Live well, ~wren ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Package documentation complaints -- and a suggestion
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Ryan Newton wrote: >> Good point. On the other hand, nobody points package authors to the >> Debian documentation (and Debian also has review for newly uploaded >> packages, as far as I know). > > Re: review process -- Perhaps there would be a use for a review process > somewhere between haskell-platform and the unwashed masses? > HP covers a very small percentage of packages, but a larger percentage could > probably pass some kind of review akin to the debian process. And it would > be a good forcing function to get people to do the things they don't get > around to I'm skeptical. We seem to have trouble getting enough of people's spare time to tackle interesting engineer work, let alone relatively thankless administrative/bureaucratic/procedural work. If people are going to devote time towards solving this particular problem (poorly documented libraries), an interesting first step would be to try solving the problem using technological means, i.e.: prohibit or otherwise discourage uploads to hackage that fail automatically-verifiable criteria here. Examples could include: "Your package lacks a description", "more than X% of your modules lack toplevel module comments", "fewer than Y% of your toplevel exports have haddock comments", etc... Packages with stability=experimental would probably be exempt from the requirements. Duncan could probably comment authoritatively, but I'm guessing Hackage 2 might provide a better framework for tackling these kinds of policy issues, because it would probably allow you to e.g. filter the package list by stability. G -- Gregory Collins ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Package documentation complaints -- and a suggestion
> > Good point. On the other hand, nobody points package authors to the > Debian documentation (and Debian also has review for newly uploaded > packages, as far as I know). Re: review process -- Perhaps there would be a use for a review process somewhere between haskell-platform and the unwashed masses? HP covers a very small percentage of packages, but a larger percentage could probably pass some kind of review akin to the debian process. And it would be a good forcing function to get people to do the things they don't get around to -Ryan ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Package documentation complaints -- and a suggestion
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 09:06:01AM +0100, Paterson, Ross wrote: > The distinction between synopsis and description is borrowed from the > Debian package format: > > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#s-descriptions > > The two fields are aimed at different audiences. Not in Debian. The synopsis and description are a bit like the title and the abstract of a scholarly paper: you might see a title without the abstract (and it must work alone), but both are aimed at the same audience - people who are unsure whether they should read the paper (install the package) and look for information sufficient to decide that it's not what they need (or that it probably is). -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/ ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Package documentation complaints -- and a suggestion
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:06, Paterson, Ross wrote: > Max Rabkin writes: >> But I also have a concrete suggestion for Hackage: include the package >> synopsis on the package's page. The distinction between synopsis and >> description can be confusing, and sometimes it seems to violate DRY to >> have the same info in both. > > You may have missed the header on the package page (dark line at the top). I did indeed. Perhaps it should be bigger? I've just opened up Synaptic, and it is indeed separate from the description, but there the synopsis is used as a heading for the description, and it's the biggest thing on the screen (whereas Hackage uses package name). > The distinction between synopsis and description is borrowed from the > Debian package format: > > http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#s-descriptions > > The two fields are aimed at different audiences. A Synopsis trying to > do double duty as the beginning of a general package description won't > work as well as a stand-alone summary for package lists, etc. Good point. On the other hand, nobody points package authors to the Debian documentation (and Debian also has review for newly uploaded packages, as far as I know). --Max ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Package documentation complaints -- and a suggestion
Max Rabkin writes: > But I also have a concrete suggestion for Hackage: include the package > synopsis on the package's page. The distinction between synopsis and > description can be confusing, and sometimes it seems to violate DRY to > have the same info in both. You may have missed the header on the package page (dark line at the top). The distinction between synopsis and description is borrowed from the Debian package format: http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#s-descriptions The two fields are aimed at different audiences. A Synopsis trying to do double duty as the beginning of a general package description won't work as well as a stand-alone summary for package lists, etc. ___ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Package documentation complaints -- and a suggestion
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 03:17, John Millikin wrote:
> The package summary is "Type-safe ADT-database mapping library.", which
> gives some idea about what it does.
Whence my suggestion to show this on the package's page. Perhaps I
shouldn't have hidden that at the bottom -- I meant this as my main
point, and I'm afraid I got a little side-tracked.
> In my experience, any package that starts its source files with
>
> {-# LANGUAGE GADTs, TypeFamilies, ExistentialQuantification,
> StandaloneDeriving, TypeSynonymInstances, MultiParamTypeClasses,
> FunctionalDependencies, FlexibleInstances, FlexibleContexts,
> OverlappingInstances, ScopedTypeVariables, GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving,
> UndecidableInstances, EmptyDataDecls #-}
>
> is probably an experiment in what is possible, rather than a
> production-friendly library.
An experiment that I was interested in, and hoped to find out more
about. But anyway, I see your point.
> Many people upload experimental packages to Hackage so that they can be used
> by other interested people, even though the packages are not ready/intended
> for mass consumption. A lack of documentation in such cases is
> understandable.
Some way of documenting this fact would, however, be helpful.
> I wonder if it would be worth giving package uploaders control over whether
> their packages are shown on the package list? Packages can be manually
> hidden by emailing an admin, but that's a lot of trouble.
In this case I followed an external link, so that would not have
helped me. There is the "stability" field, which has an "experimental"
value, but it's not at all clear what the different values mean other
than "stable".
It is fair that some packages on Hackage are not intended for human
consumption. Perhaps this is caused in part by having our package
installer and humans looking in the same place for information about
Haskell libraries. But I think we can do a better job of
distinguishing these packages. Perhaps a "visibility" or
"release-status" field?
--Max
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
Re: [Haskell-cafe] Package documentation complaints -- and a suggestion
The package summary is "Type-safe ADT-database mapping library.", which
gives some idea about what it does.
In my experience, any package that starts its source files with
{-# LANGUAGE GADTs, TypeFamilies, ExistentialQuantification,
StandaloneDeriving, TypeSynonymInstances, MultiParamTypeClasses,
FunctionalDependencies, FlexibleInstances, FlexibleContexts,
OverlappingInstances, ScopedTypeVariables, GeneralizedNewtypeDeriving,
UndecidableInstances, EmptyDataDecls #-}
is probably an experiment in what is possible, rather than a
production-friendly library.
Many people upload experimental packages to Hackage so that they can be used
by other interested people, even though the packages are not ready/intended
for mass consumption. A lack of documentation in such cases is
understandable.
I wonder if it would be worth giving package uploaders control over whether
their packages are shown on the package list? Packages can be manually
hidden by emailing an admin, but that's a lot of trouble.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
