On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 02:09:17PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 07:38:39AM -0500, Earnie Boyd wrote: > >Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> Not amused, > >> Corinna > > > >Nor, am I amused. If it must be tagged I'd rather see the tag NEW > >instead, unless the maintainer believes that it's actually an > >experimental version. > > I think I've already given my opinion on this, too. I don't see any > reason for a new package to be marked "Test". What's the gain? It > will just result in the package getting almost no exposure. > > What extra information will be gained by making it "Test"? Will the > new user be more forgiving? More apt to report bugs? I don't get > it. > > I thought the intent of Test was to have a version of a product for > people to try while still providing a safety net of a "stable" version > to fall back to. > > I don't see how that applies to the first release of a new package.
So back to the original question: John, are you sure that it should become a `test' version? Otherwise I'll remove it. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Developer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Red Hat, Inc.
