Axel Thimm wrote: > On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 08:37:06AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Michael Schwendt wrote: >>> When some people ask whether anything is wrong with a beta, it is >>> equally valid to ask what's wrong with the last official stable >>> release? Where are the answers to both questions? >> Exactly who says that the beta has more bugs / problems then the >> latest stable, since its newer its supposed to be an improvement, >> this can be in features but also in bugcount. >> >> For example I would expect a 1.0.1 RC to be better then 1.0.0 for >> most products, so which do I package? > > I think this is quite easy to answer: If the software is labeled as > beta/pre/cvs/svn/rc in fact anything non-released, then upstream > obviously considers this software not ready for mass distribution. > > There are exceptions to this rule like some projects that never > release or release every few millenia and explicitely ask to use their > VCS, but these are indeed the exception and it's straightforward to > fulfill Michael's request, e.g. "packaging from CVS due to upstream > recommending doing so instead of using the old release version". > > Where packagers should really offer an explanation is when upstream > has a sensible release cycle, doesn't recommend jumping on VCS or betas > and still the packager sees a need to package non-released software. > I agree and I'm not against having a packaging should use latest stable not rc / beta / cvs. But that should be a Should and not a Must and such a rule will have exceptions and then the question becomes what is the procedure for such exceptions? Michael's mail tends to permission must be asked and down that road (which Michael has advocated before for other issues) lies having to ask permission to some kinda committee for every fart one lets and down that same road lies the hell known as bureaucracy! Example at my work if I want to visit a secondary computer science school to promote the computer science study I work for I must first ask permission to someone in a building in another city with zero knowledge of Computer Science because the bureaucrats wants our University to speak with one voice to the outside world, end result smaller harder to sell studies get less and less students because we are no longer allowed to take care of our own marketing and the central University marketing committee couldn't care less because small technical studies are not those where huge gains in overall number of students can be had. all I'm saying is sure a general rule of thumb is ok, but please leave room for the packagers to make exceptions when necessary themselves, don't leave this up to some committee! Regards, Hans -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
