Hi, I think this reply is too late (since I've just downloaded it from a mirror ;), I don't mind whether it's a test version or not - but the docs are still not terribly clear wrt this (IMHO).
I'll send an announcement tomorrow. Thanks, J. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen > Sent: Thursday, 20 December 2001 7:26 pm > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Units > > > 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.
