Re: Size of Optional - policy and name for new Priority
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 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.
'useful' is nice, but it does carry a bit more weight than we wanted
(not to mention it implies that the optional/extra packages aren't
useful). 'common' is more neutral, and fits with 'standard' in a way i
think we want it to -- things that are not necessarily guaranteed to
be on an os, but usually are, and you can expect that there's a
reasonable chance they'll get used eventually on a medium-sized
"Reasoning is partly insane" --Rush, "Anagram (for Mongo)"
PGP 5.0 key (0xE024447449) at http://cif.rochester.edu/~phouchg/pgpkey.txt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.1, an Emacs/PGP interface
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----