[krick]

That seems like absolutely great idea. I want it already. I wonder why it wasn't processed further, while being 6 month old already.

It is different notion of "blessed" than the original proposal and, IMHO, a much better one. Steve's proposal is quite dubious, I guess. The problem is low standard for the word "blessed" here: in his proposal this badge has no technical meaning, but big social impact. Crate doesn't have to be superior in a technical sense to get this badge, it just has to be "famous", and stuff gets "famous" for various reasons. That's really bad and will get worse when Rust/Cargo will become more popular.

But that "safe/unsafe" isn't a matter of opinion anymore. If a library is known to be unsafe through the "safe" interface: it's a bug, and a crate shouldn't have this badge from a moment the bug has been discovered and until the bug is fixed again (or even longer, if there have been 5 such bugs over the last 2 weeks, even though now they seem to be fixed). It somewhat serves the original purpose (I assume), because it still means that a crate that isn't used heavily enough ("was downloaded N times over the last month") cannot be "blessed" — we don't have all necessary information to mark it as "blessed" yet, so it will help to set "junk crates" aside.

It's worth nothing if a library is made by Github, but is known to be buggy and to leak memory. But it is worth something if a "github API" crate made by John Doe is used by hundreds of people and didn't have a single memory leak for quite a while.

[steveklabnik]

> Steve's proposal is quite dubious, I guess.

I pretty much opened this issue so we could talk about it, not because I think it's a good idea.

[krick]

Oh, I didn't mean any offense. I'm just commenting on the idea: the original wording of the proposal seems dangerous, but both reem's and yazaddaruvala's ideas definitely have potential.

So you did a good job by starting that discussion. I hope it will have results.

[steveklabnik]

It's all good, none taken! :)