4 ms·
Honestly, when I enter a project page I glance these to quickly evaluate how active the development is. E.g. for Ruby library when I see "9 years ago" everywher
by imhoguy 6y ago
Honestly, when I enter a project page I glance these to quickly evaluate how active the development is. E.g. for Ruby library when I see "9 years ago" everywhere then likely the code needs some work to get it working with the latest Ruby version. But when there is just one "2 months ago" on `lib` directory it tells me somebody came back here to maintain the things. I am not sure if list of accurately formated timestamps would be quicker to scan.
Regarding unmaintained projects, usually my next step is to check recent PRs list or Network Graph page to see if there is some more active fork.
- berkes 6y agoThe fact that many people are surprised when they find out that "whoa; 2003, that's like 17 years ago" only pushes this idea. It probably depends on your goal, though. Whether you want to know "the (relative) age of something", or "the point in time of some event". I think most often the first is the usecase, which is probably why most projects choose that.
- zeveb 6y agoThat's one thing I really like about Common Lisp: a project can be untouched for over a decade and still work perfectly with the very latest versions of SBCL/LispWorks/Allegro/CLISP/whatever. Sometimes a library can just be done.