Pilotfish rating system
In order to guage the quality and maturity of the code inside the pilotfish community we've developed an objective rating system.
Looking to get started with your own plugin? Check out the plugins documentation.
Have a different idea? Fork this repo, make your suggested changes, and submit a pull request!
We all need to start somewhere, right? The developer makes no garauntees of stability, and you shouldn't be using it on a site you care about.
On at least 1 production site, being used by real end users.
- Documentation via README. Sample
- Unit tests that can be run through a browser. Sample
- LICENSE Sample
- Multiple sites using it.
- Author is responsive to issues
- Established release process with versioning and change notes/history. Sample
- Passes a static processor like jslint or jshint
- Grunt or some other automated build tool for release. Sample
- editorconfig or other solution for coding style consistency
- More than one contributor. Contributors listed out in the readme or a CONTRIBUTORS file. Sample
- Continous Integration to run linting and unit tests on every commit. Grunt and travis-ci recommended
- Solid Documentation either in a /doc/ subfolder or a wiki.
- Integration tests with a real browser (using Casperjs, Phantomjs, Selenium etc.)
- At least 3 months of production usage with real users
Stable, production quality code. This plugin has been in use for at least 6 months on multiple production sites, and has encountered a wide enough variety of edge cases that it's known to be stable. This shit don't stank.
- Mechanism for the community to coordinate, handle support, and improve the plugin (mailing list)
- Separate development/beta/production code lines
- CDN hosting for the production release of the js
- Multiple contributors responsible for the project
- Code hosted on NPM
- Plugin has it's own repository
- Issue tracker
Obtaining five fish is impossible for humans. If so, it would imply perfection, and we'd have to redo the scale. 4.5 is as high as you can go. :)