Feature: Dynamic badge

[nathany]

Pass/fail #107 (comment)

• Package comments (this is the important one)
• presence of CHANGELOG?
• LICENSE file or found in the Readme?
  ![BSD](http://img.shields.io/badge/license-BSD-green.svg)

Another possibility is a sort of "documentation coverage" score. See #107 (comment).

[dmitshur]

I think LICENSE file should definitely not be mandatory. The license is often mentioned in README.md (or an even higher scope) and that shouldn't be penalized.

[mewmew]

I agree with @shurcooL that projects shouldn't be penalized for not including a LICENSE file. One of the things I love about Go projects is that they only contain relevant information, such as the actual source code and a README. No Makefiles or configure scripts are required.

That being said I do recognize the need to label Go projects based on their license. In most cases it should be possible to determine the license of a project without requiring a dedicated LICENSE file. For instance doing a fuzzy search of the README and/or source code comments could locate statements such as ... hereby released into the public domain. Another indicator could be explicit links to pages such as https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

An example of such wording is given in the README of the following repository: https://github.com/mewmew/sfml

[nathany]

I'm not sure exactly what the intention is around the license:

• Do we just want to know that there is one? Encouraging people to not put up a repo with no license at all.
• Do we actually want to determine which license and incorporate that into GoDoc.org somewhere?

Considering packages in go.exp, they are covered by a broader license and may not have a readme. Does that mean they should be penalized?

I think the main criteria should be that their is reference documentation and package descriptions that GoDoc can use.

[nathany]

Sounds good.

I think placing a badge in the README is in itself an indication that a developer wants to share a package and wants to provide easy access to the documentation.

[adg]

What's the status here?

[nathany]

I'm not sure if this is something we still want.

I came at this from the angle of being able to make the badge dynamic, so what could we make it do. That doesn't seem like the best way to design features.

[adg]

Agree. Let's shelve it for now.