Package maintenance status badges - #17
Conversation
| There are three statuses: | ||
|
|
||
| ### Maintained | ||
| [](https://biojulia.dev/) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| [](https://biojulia.dev/) | |
| [](https://biojulia.dev/) | |
| ``` | |
| [](https://biojulia.dev/) | |
| ``` |
Feel like it's nice to just have the code written out too - I think as you have it it will be rendered
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I also wonder, do we want the link to be do the person who is the maintainer? eg
[](https://github.com/kescobo)
If I'm the maintainer?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Feel like it's nice to just have the code written out too - I think as you have it it will be rendered
Yes, I'll add the markdown for all three badges.
I also wonder, do we want the link to be do the person who is the maintainer? eg
[](https://github.com/kescobo)If I'm the maintainer?
I would say not. Some packages can be well maintained by the community without anyone being named the lead maintainer. And forcing people to declare that they are maintainers might make them feel more burdened.
| If no maintainer responds: | ||
| * After roughly **one month**, the status may be changed if there is a good reason, for example that the package has stopped working on current Julia releases. | ||
| * After **six months**, the status may be changed without any particular reason. | ||
|
|
||
| If a maintainer later reappears, the status can always be changed back. | ||
|
|
||
| It is not possible to write down rules that cover every case, so please try to work it out in the spirit of the descriptions above. | ||
| If there is disagreement, the decision of the admins of the organisation the repository belongs to should be followed, together with the BioJulia admins if the repository is outside BioJulia. |
| ## Package maintenance status | ||
| We recommend that every BioJulia package carries a badge at the top of its README, stating how actively the package is maintained. | ||
| The purpose of the badge is to set expectations: it tells a prospective user whether they can rely on the package, and whether they can expect a response if they open an issue. | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we mention that we intend to use those badges to do aggregation / promotion of packages in the future, or wait until we actually have that functionality ready to go?
…kages, other minor fixes
|
Thanks for the comments, I've updated the PR. |
|
@jakobnissen Is this the kind of thing we want to post to discourse to solicit feedback on prior to merging, or just role it out and ask for edits if people object? |
2 participants
Add a section in CONTRIBUTING.md on package maintenance status.
This PR should only be merged after BioJulia/biojulia.github.io#42 has been merged, because otherwise the linked badge svg files are not present.
I've tried to make the text match previous discussions. I'm open to changes/improvements.
[ ] I have added unit tests, and the CodeCov bot shows tests cover my new code.Not applicable.