This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
RE: Units
- From: "John Morrison" <john dot r dot morrison at ntlworld dot com>
- To: <cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 21:56:25 -0000
- Subject: RE: Units
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: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com
> [mailto:cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com]On Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen
> Sent: Thursday, 20 December 2001 7:26 pm
> To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com
> 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:cygwin@cygwin.com
> Red Hat, Inc.