Package Health/datatables.net/datatables.net-responsive-bs

datatables.net/datatables.net-responsive-bs

This release appears generally safe to depend on from a maintenance and transparency perspective: it is a stable, non-deprecated version with 13 releases over about 2.5 years, five releases in the last 12 months, a recent repository push, an MIT license, and organization backing from DataTables. The main concerns are that recent repository activity is limited to one commit by one contributor, the package and repository contain no tests or changelog, and no security policy or security-scanning tooling is present. These are meaningful hygiene and bus-factor gaps, but they do not outweigh the continuing release activity, active organization-owned repository, and clear package contents.

Latest 4.0.3

Packagist

78%

Total Score

Maintainer Stability

Dependencies

100

Maturity

Supply Chain

Health Score Breakdown

Package scaffolding

A substantive README and GitHub Releases support usability and release transparency, while the absence of packaged and repository tests and a changelog is a maintenance-hygiene gap. Because this is a distribution/styling package with a clear README, the missing tests and changelog are concerns but not severe on their own.

Repo bus factor

All one recent commit was made by a single contributor, giving a 100% top-contributor share and a thin recent bus factor. Organization ownership partially reduces handoff risk, but no second active contributor is shown.

Repo commit activity

The repository recorded one commit in the last three months from one active maintainer. Recent activity exists, but its low volume provides only modest evidence of ongoing maintenance.

Repo issue activity

There were no new or closed issues and no merged pull requests in the last month, with one open pull request. This indicates limited recent collaboration, although the available issue counts are partly unknown.

Repo tooling

The repository uses Composer build tooling, supporting a defined build process, but it reports no security-scanning tools. The missing scanning is a security-process gap rather than evidence that the package is unsafe.