On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 00:30 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:02:53 -0500, Christopher Aillon wrote: > > > Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:23:51 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > > > > > > >> I'll admit to being in a foul mood, part of which being caused by yet > > >> another message trying to 'fix' the non-broken part of last week's > > >> conflict, and that after a lot of people tried very hard not to feed the > > >> flames by keeping quiet. > > >> > > > > > > A couple of valid questions have been raised. And an upgrade to a beta > > > release with an approval in less than 24 hours is something that is > > > broken. I think there are obviously valid and invalid reasons to have "beta" or "prerelease" versions of software in Fedora. Perhaps any packager wishing to go to a "beta" or "prerelease" should have to present their rationalization to the Fedora Packaging Committee/FESCO for approval? ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway || Red Hat || Fedora || Aurora || GPG ID: 93054260 "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men -- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular." -- Edward R. Murrow, March 9, 1954 -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
