Re: Size of Optional - policy and name for new Priority
On Thu, 18 Mar 1999 Kristoffer.Rose@ENS-Lyon.FR 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 | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: