On 14/01/15 23:51, Trevor Hemsley wrote: > Now as far as the term "Community Approved" goes: I think it's fairly > accurate and I'm not sure what the objection to it was. We have to have > a way to say "These repos are ok" and "these suck" and "these suck worse > than that". The way the page reads at the moment seems to me to strike a > good balance between providing useful information and avoiding libel! > Being able to quantify what good-behaviour might be ( eg. multilib lines up etc ) not only allows us to measure how good / bad a repo is, it also gives the other repos a yardstick to work through in order to become good. I realise that a good repo will do things that are hard to measure eg. delta between upstream release of a patch and when it shows up in repo; but a large bulk of things we should be able to automate I feel. -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc _______________________________________________ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
