Tracking issue for RFC 1824: Proposal for default crate recommendation ranking

[aturon]

This is a tracking issue for the RFC 1824 (rust-lang/rfcs#1824).

Steps:

• Sort crates by number of downloads in the last 90 days
• Render contents of README on crate pages
• Have cargo new add a template README and template documentation
• Create a "Well documented" badge for crates in the top 20% (crates.io team decided against this)
• Add a badge for crate authors to self-report their maintenance intentions
• Add the ability for crate authors to add isitmaintained.com badges to their crate
• Add the ability for crate authors to add code coverage badges to their crate
• Have "favorite owners" and highlight crates owned by your favorite owners in crate lists
• Adjust documentation (see instructions on forge)

[carols10cents]

Should this be in rust-lang/rust or rust-lang/crates.io? I was planning on making a bunch of smaller issues in crates.io anyway, I'm fine leaving this open as a larger tracking issue if that makes sense, but I don't think there are any changes to rust-lang/rust to be made....

[aturon]

At the moment all RFCs are tracked here, regardless. Setting up a TODO list with links into issues on crates.io should do the trick.

[blasrodri]

Hi!
I was planning on developing a crate ranker using something similar to a Page Rank algorithm. Would it be useful in any way?

[vignesh-sankaran]

@blasrodri Hmm, crates.io isn't that big as of yet. Maybe you could outline a case for it in this issue, or otherwise create a new issue here?

[BatmanAoD]

The last comment in the "add a template README" issue suggests that that issue should be closed now that community versions exist. Additionally, I don't see a direct link between that feature and the ranking feature. Would it be appropriate to remove that bullet point?