Distinguishing between dead and stable packages

[kornelski]

There are some kinds of packages that don't require active maintenance:

• very small single-purpose packages that can be finished

  • https://crates.io/crates/file — it's just 2 convenience functions and it probably won't have another release ever.
  • https://crates.io/crates/rgb — it's a struct for interoperability between my other packages, and I rarely need to change anything in it

• *-sys packages/FFI bindings. They may not need to change at all, or may only require updating once in a while when the API of the underlying library/system changes.

  • e.g. https://crates.io/crates/lcms2-sys

• Mature projects that don't have much churn, because they're stable and maintain high degree of backwards compatibility (although Rust probably doesn't have these yet :)

Related to #3

[kornelski]

One factor could be looking at usage of the package — whether it's growing or declining. If it looks inactive, but new users are still adopting it, then it's probably stable. If it's inactive and loses users, then it's dead.

A simpler solution may be to have slightly different ranking for crates named *-sys and with versions past 1.0.

[MoSal]

Note that I'm aware of this caveat. It's mentioned in the README:

• The inactivity factors bias against complete, or maintenance-only crates. This will become more relevant when the echo system matures.

Detecting this with non-reliable magic is a no-no for me. Instead, I think users should be conscious
about what kind of crate they are looking for. And maybe use -p, --sort-positive when they deem it fit.