If You Are Launching an Open Source Project
A directory plan for an open-source release, using verified registries and catalogues.
Introduction
Open-source projects have the widest set of free listing options in this dataset, and the least curation. Almost every language registry accepts anything that packages correctly, which means the listing itself carries little signal and your documentation carries most of it.
The exceptions are the curated catalogues that review before publishing. Those are worth real effort.
Evidence base
Evidence base: 26 of 64 verified directories in the PetroHrys dataset accept open-source projects. Every figure and table on this page is generated from those records at build time. Fields that were never established are shown as Unknown rather than filled in.
Decision framework
- Publish to the registry native to your ecosystem first. That is where installers look.
- Write the README, licence and metadata before publishing, not after. The registry entry is only as useful as what it links to.
- Then submit to any curated catalogue that reviews submissions.
- Consider a transparent funding listing if the project takes contributions.
Comparison
| Directory | Country | Category | Scope | Submission | Verification required | Review system | PetroHrys Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Python Package Index (PyPI) | global | developer | global | Free | Yes | No | 88 |
| WordPress Plugin Directory | global | developer | global | Free | Yes | Yes | 87 |
| crates.io | global | developer | global | Free | Yes | No | 86 |
| GitHub Marketplace | global | developer | global | Unknown | Yes | Unknown | 86 |
| NuGet Gallery | global | developer | global | Free | Yes | No | 85 |
| Packagist.org | global | developer | global | Free | Yes | No | 85 |
| RubyGems.org | global | developer | global | Unknown | Yes | No | 85 |
| Hugging Face | global | developer | global | Freemium | Yes | No | 84 |
| Maven Central | global | developer | global | Free | Yes | No | 84 |
| Add-ons for Firefox | global | app-directories | global | Unknown | Yes | Yes | 83 |
| Flathub | global | app-directories | global | Free | Yes | Unknown | 83 |
| Visual Studio Marketplace | global | developer | global | Unknown | Yes | Unknown | 83 |
Advantages recorded across these directories
- Free publishing
- Operated by a non-profit foundation
- Free hosting and submission for plugins
- Ratings and install counts are public
- Operated by the Rust Foundation
- Direct reach into developer workflows
Disadvantages recorded across these directories
- No editorial review of package quality
- Plugins must be GPL-compatible
- Manual review can delay publication
- No quality review of published crates
- No rating or review mechanism visible on the index
- Vendor-operated rather than foundation-governed
Recommendations
Work through the framework above in order and stop at the point where the next listing has no specific purpose.
When not to use this
- Projects not yet usable by anyone else. A registry entry for an empty project is discoverable and unhelpful.
Frequently asked questions
Do registries check quality?
Generally not. None of the registries in this dataset is recorded as performing editorial quality review, which is why documentation matters more than the listing.
Related guides
Editorial references
Every directory named here has its own page recording what was verified, when, by whom and from which source. Scoring is documented in How the PetroHrys Score Works, and the verification standard in How Directories Are Verified.