Josh Boyer schrieb: > On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 16:58 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: >> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:56:09 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: >> This topic came to a sudden end on the same day it was started, without a >> clear resolution and without any conclusion on whether including beta >> versions of some software is "okay" in this case. >> Has FESCo looked into this? > > No. And I don't think we should. > > Theoretically, the maintainers of the packages know best as to how > stable the software they are packaging is, what the timeline for said > beta is to reach production, etc. If another maintainer questions this, > then open a bug report against the package explaining why. > > That being said, my personal opinion is that "beta" or pre-release > packages should only be done in the devel branch, and only if that beta > has a really good chance of becoming an actual release before the devel > branch is forked for the next Extras release. > > As for the third party repo aspect of this, that is quite difficult. > There are potentially tons of third party repos, which already conflict > with each other. We cannot show preference for one or the other. That > does not mean that a third party repository maintainer cannot open a > bug. It just means that we cannot expect Extras maintainers to go > looking for problems in each and every third party repo before updating > something. +1 CU thl -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
