Macports needs a little marketing ....

[Richard L. Hamilton]

> On Nov 16, 2016, at 12:09, Daniel J. Luke <dluke at geeklair.net> wrote:
> 
> On Nov 16, 2016, at 10:16 AM, Mojca Miklavec <mojca at macports.org> wrote:
>> The only thing that could be done would be a slight delay between
>> master and "stable". For example everything that's in master would go
>> to "quasi-stable" after a week unless some problems are discovered
>> (and then the port would be held back). But this requires extra
>> manpower again. Something we lack already.
> 
> I think it would be nicer to just be able to have ports tagged with some metadata (passes lint, buildbot was able to process, installed by n # of users who have agreed to send stats back to the project, etc.)
> 
> End users could use the metadata to make the kinds of decisions one might make for 'stable' vs. 'unstable' stuff elsewhere.
> 
> -- 
> Daniel J. Luke


For some manually added metadata, where the upstream purports to fix a CVE, the CVE number it fixes might be of interest to some, especially if the presence of that field could be used to select upgrades.