Thanks for the suggestion, Tony.

But this would defeat the development methodology being used. The chief way I find out whether things are broken or not is for people to use it and report back rapidly. This saves me time testing stuff I rarely use, and gets the latest goodies into eager hot little hands very quickly. And since I never knowingly release a buggy version..

If I start adding "verified" and "not verified" labels, things won't get tested as rapidly, which will make them harder to fix afterwards (since the code base evolves rather rapidly, 'case ya didn't notice).

The whole process works because it is a good collaboration involving me, you, the other Tony, number9, and a ton of other eager owners.

A crude way of checking for "stability" already exists: if one doesn't want to contribute to the process, then just don't download the "latest" version unless the time/date stamp is more than 3 days old. By that time, all noticeable bugs are usually crushed, and a new release issued.

Cheers