undefined | Better HN

0 pointsstrken5y ago0 comments

Why not? Sticking a disclaimer saying "this has basically no test coverage" at the top of your readme has negligible cost and might stop someone from being fired.

Of course, there's no obligation or even expectation that you should provide such a warning, but if you're already thinking about it, might as well just do it.

0 comments

mdtusz5y ago

At risk of sounding like a gatekeeper, maybe someone getting reprimanded for using an untested, production unready library isn't a bad thing.

It's not realistic to read through all the source of every dependency you use, but it should be encouraged for developers to take a more active approach in evaluating dependencies they pull in - at least to check how active development is, what sort of open issues there may be, test coverage, code quality sniff tests, what the license is etc.

I'd be willing to bet most GPL violations are due to ignorance, rather than intentional.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsstrken5y ago0 comments

Why not? Sticking a disclaimer saying "this has basically no test coverage" at the top of your readme has negligible cost and might stop someone from being fired.

Of course, there's no obligation or even expectation that you should provide such a warning, but if you're already thinking about it, might as well just do it.

0 comments

mdtusz5y ago

At risk of sounding like a gatekeeper, maybe someone getting reprimanded for using an untested, production unready library isn't a bad thing.

I'd be willing to bet most GPL violations are due to ignorance, rather than intentional.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse