Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2001/12/12/19:36:46
Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 04:52:12PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
> >But Robert is right -- it's new, it's (relatively) untested; it needs to
> >be a test release. Let's not talk about the restructured auto*
> >packages...
>
> But when have we ever done this? AFAICT, there isn't a single package in
> latest/contrib which has a 'test' designation and we've had a few
> new packages in the last month.
Maybe not recently -- but several of my packages went thru a 'test'
phase on sourceware before becomming 'curr'ent.
>
> I can't imagine how it would benefit the user or the contributor to make
> figlet harder to install than normal.
However, I see a slight contradiction in the way we're handling new
packages right now. We won't upload them to sourceware unless the
contributor properly packages them and provides them on some OTHER
website -- for *testing*.
Then, we (may or may not) insist on an official
'sourceware-testing-release'...before the package becomes official.
But, given the current setup.exe, even when it becomes official
setup.exe won't install it automatically, so ONLY those folks interested
in trying it out ("testing it") will affirmatively install it.
Perhaps that is overkill. Maybe 'test' *should* be reserved for test
releases of existing packages -- assuming our vetting process for new
packages/contributors is thorough enough.
--Chuck
- Raw text -