On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Alaric Snell-Pym
<ala...@snell-pym.org.uk> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 09/08/2011 11:59 AM, Felix wrote:
>
>>
>> Perhaps a bit of ranking? So eggs that are used a lot or that people
>> prefer to use are clearly distinguishable from the weird, broken,
>> useless or obsolete.
>
> A few ideas here:
>
> {...}
>
> 4) Just plain user rankings with a little vote buttonPython did this with their central module repository. They added the feature, but then later removed it. The reasons, as I recall, were mostly: 1. It was hardly getting any use, and 2. There were arguments over what the ratings actually meant, their usefulness, and their validity. Perl 5 has a separate ratings site http://cpanratings.perl.org/ , which is quite valuable to the community -- not so much for the rating numbers themselves, IMO, but for the thoughtful comments people add about a given module. It's often useful to use when choosing between multiple similar modules. (As an aside, Perl also has a separate automatable "rating" mechanism which computes a given module's "kwalitee". This is a module that examines a module and looks for signs of possible quality: for example, Is there a readme? Is there documentation? Are there tests? etc. See http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?Test::Kwalitee and http://cpants.perl.org/kwalitee.html for more info. Dunno whether or not something like this would be useful for checking eggs with.) ---John _______________________________________________ Chicken-hackers mailing list Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
