Define terms

[tzizi]

Sorry if this issue has already been posted. I believe the various terms used in the project should be defined clearly in the README or other.

---

development

This comment is one definition I found.

Personally I would argue 1 commit in the last year is a little too strict for sporadic. I would also suggest measuring by lines of code changed, as "sporadic" projects can have many small commits, typo fixes, etc. without actually changing much game code. This might be a bit nitpicky though

---

status

Although the distinction between playable, semi-playable, and unplayable are understandable, it would be nice if it was explained as well, especially the difference between the last two. My personal interpretation:

• playable = Able to play from start to finish without losing features
• semi-playable = Able to play the game either in full or in part, but with features missing
• unplayable = If released, it would not be considered a game (for example, a map viewer)

Alternatively another type could be added, something along the lines of complete, which would take the place of the playable definition, and playable could be downgraded to "Able to play from start to finish, with some missing features".

---

type

Once #583 gets implemented, I believe it would be important to clarify the differences precisely for this as well.

[cxong]

About development, I agree we should come up with a strict definition. I was thinking of eventually automating it, so having clear rules for it will be a prerequisite.

For reference, this is how openhub does it: https://blog.openhub.net/about-project-activity-icons/

They have more values than we need because they host way more projects, and also their scale is relative rather than absolute. Nevertheless we could take a few rules like:

Projects that have had no activity in the past two years will show as inactive.

We could use the same rule, and apply for halted.

Projects less than a year old, based on their first commit date, will show as new.

We don't have new but perhaps we can be lenient and use at least active for new projects.

From there it's a bit subjective. Openhub weighs the past month more heavily, so if we use similar logic:

• sporadic: >=1 commit per year for >1 year
• active: >=1 commit in the past month, and >=12 commits in the past year
• very active: >=4 commits in the past month, and >= 52 commits in the past year

How does this stack up with existing projects?

• very active https:/spring1944/spring1944/commits/master - 14 commits in past month, >200 commits in past year
• active https://bitbucket.org/ecwolf/ecwolf/commits/all - 4 commits in past month, 47 in past year
• sporadic https:/AlisterT/openjazz/commits/master - 0 in past month, 32 in past year

I don't really agree with the complete tag though, seems too specific and subjective. Perhaps we can just combine halted and complete as inactive.