On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:00:35 +0100 (CET), Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le Mar 31 octobre 2006 11:55, Michael Schwendt a écrit : > > On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:55:05 +0100 (CET), Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > >> So the FE review should approve the known-broken version of some > >> software > >> instead of the known-fixed/improved beta is that what you are saying ? > > > > What are you talking about? > > I'm talking about the answer caillon wrote and you dismissed as irrelevant > without exhibiting any sign of understanding. Since it does not seem I'm > getting through and I'm getting fed up with being accused of FUD-ing I'll > let other people pick up the exercise (the ones who didn't /dev/null the > whole thread that is) It takes longer for me to get fed up with your style of putting words into my mouth. ;) Christopher Aillon pointed out some _general_ examples for why it may be necessary to package a beta release (e.g. because back-porting security fixes is not feasible or too time-consuming, or because a new major version replaces one or several build requirements which have legal issues). He did not explain why these packages, which _did not_ exist as older releases in Fedora Extras, were approved and built for the stable trees in less than a day. Most likely because too many pieces of this thread are ripped out of the context, it is not always clear whether we discuss general things or specific incidents. And whether the packages that started this thread were affected by major security problems or legal issues cannot be seen by reading the review tickets. Once they are included in FE, caillon's comment applies just fine. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
