2 ms·

> stars - the likelihood that an issue affecting us will affect someone else. More people affected, the more likely it gets fixed So you are equating stars wit

> stars - the likelihood that an issue affecting us will affect someone else. More people affected, the more likely it gets fixed So you are equating stars with adoption, which they are really aren't a good measure of. Even in the most favorable interpretation stars can only serve as a proxy for adoption when used in combination with a lot of other signals. Especially for hyped topics, even ungamed stars are more directly a proxy for interest rather than adoption. And as many startup founders of failed freemium products can tell you, very often interest doesn't translate to adoption. I had to learn that myself the hard way when I helped create a top 5 starred Rust project at the time (~5k stars), which I can tell you for certain no more than a handful of people outside the company used.

SkyPuncher 3y ago
Well, that's why we don't use stars on their own. As I explained, we're building an aggregate view across a bunch of metrics with human judgement making the final call. Further, we're often comparing against alternatives so this isn't really a Yes/No type of thing (especially on stars). It's a general sense of a project's well-being and stability. ---- LangChain is a great example: * 44k stars, 5.1k forks * Roughly 8 months old (very young) * Very active commit history * Insane number of issues * Lots of open PRs This is a tool that we'd be hesitant to use without proper risk mitigations. It's young, it's moving very quickly. While it has a lot of visibility, it's not clear if that's all moving in the right direction. By contrast, underscore: * 27k stars, 5.6k forks * 11+ years old * Stalling commit history * Some issues, but not many. * Not many open PRs This is clearly a project on the opposite side of the spectrum. If you didn't know about mature alternatives (lodash, rambda, etc), it'd be a safe project to approve.

SkyPuncher 3y ago

Well, that's why we don't use stars on their own. As I explained, we're building an aggregate view across a bunch of metrics with human judgement making the final call. Further, we're often comparing against alternatives so this isn't really a Yes/No type of thing (especially on stars). It's a general sense of a project's well-being and stability. ---- LangChain is a great example: * 44k stars, 5.1k forks * Roughly 8 months old (very young) * Very active commit history * Insane number of issues * Lots of open PRs This is a tool that we'd be hesitant to use without proper risk mitigations. It's young, it's moving very quickly. While it has a lot of visibility, it's not clear if that's all moving in the right direction. By contrast, underscore: * 27k stars, 5.6k forks * 11+ years old * Stalling commit history * Some issues, but not many. * Not many open PRs This is clearly a project on the opposite side of the spectrum. If you didn't know about mature alternatives (lodash, rambda, etc), it'd be a safe project to approve.