On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:29:57 -0500, Christopher Aillon wrote: > > 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. What makes you think so? I do dislike rushed reviews in general as often they are error-prone. That does not mean that I need to mix all that in this discussion. > 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. Yes, which is questionable and asks for adjusted guidelines. > Argue about all software; don't single out beta software. But we need to start somewhere... unless we want to see many more pre-release snapshots in Fedora Extras. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
