Michael Schwendt wrote:
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.
Because you are arguing about beta software. You seem to have no
problem with non-beta software getting approved and built in a day. So
once it's approved and built, it is the package owner's discretion to
build a different version of a package, which may include so-called beta
software. Argue about all software; don't single out beta software.
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
