On Thu, 18 Mar 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Ideas I have had so far are: > > Usual > > Common > > Better > > Good > > Useful > > Widespread > > Commended > > Of these `Commended' in the best, IMHO. Perhaps `Core' even if that may > sound like more important than `Standard'. > > Ian also raises several QA issues that these `Better' packages should > adhere to. I suppose that the same requirements must then also hold for > Required, Important, and Standard packages?
I like 'Useful', personally. I don't feel strongly, though. I *definitely* like the idea. I would also like to see some QA standards for the higher priorities. Jules /----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\ | Jelibean aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 6 Evelyn Rd | | Jules aka | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Richmond, Surrey | | Julian Bean | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TW9 2TF *UK* | +----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+ | War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. | | When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. | \----------------------------------------------------------------------/
