Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 14:09:17 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Units
Message-ID: <20011220190917.GA2946@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <CCD084B0E779D411A70300508B6622260361F978 AT exchukahis02 DOT experian DOT co DOT uk> <20011220095436 DOT A19634 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <010201c18938$1c454480$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20011220105200 DOT I21898 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <014601c1893c$2e969c70$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20011220110846 DOT K21898 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3C21DBCF DOT FE53C544 AT yahoo DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3C21DBCF.FE53C544@yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 07:38:39AM -0500, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 08:53:30PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>> > Ok, I bit. Step 5:
>> >
>> > 5. Create setup.hint file following the documentation on this web page.
>> > For new packages the first upload MUST be tagged as experimental. Once
>> > the package has no major bug reports from the users, then a current
>> > package may be introduced
>> 
>> I hate that.  Quote from a few lines above the `setup.hint' section:
>> 
>>   Test versions are specified via the setup.hint file as described
>>   below. It is not required that your package have a test version.
>>   Use of a test version of a package is at the discretion of the
>>   package maintainer.
>> 
>> And how long does it take to wait for "major bug reports from the users"?
>> 1 day? A week? A month?
>> 
>> 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.

cgf