Fedora Extras packaging beta software into production repos, why?

[Axel Thimm]

On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 10:01:06PM +0100, Tim Jackson wrote:
> Gianluca Sforna wrote:
> 
> >However, he raised another interesting topic, stating that he felt the
> >package was "blitz reviewed": so, why don't we add a fixed delay from
> >a given point in the review ( for example, from the last update to the
> >package, or from putting FE-ACCEPT on it).

The blitz-review by itself is not wrong, but the synergy of
blitz-review & beta-software & untested software (because only the
dependencies made the review and the main application package itself
is known to have upstream issues at the current beta version) well
that makes is a no-go. After all at the very least the beta
dependencies have proved to break the non-beta application package,
but at run and build time, so one wanders what good are they at all?

> I'm not sure this is a great idea unless $fixed_delay is quite short. It 
> may add unnecessary/pointless/irritating delays to trivial or 
> uncontentious packages.
> 
> What might be more useful in terms of soliciting opinion would be some 
> kind of notification to fedora-extras-list when the package request is 
> first submitted (but no subsequent Bugzilla noise), to gain a wider 
> audience and attention to the fact that a particular package is being 
> proposed.

Or maybe a package going beta/pre/anything non-release should require
a second reviewer. As well as an already submitted package suddenly
going beta should have s/o's blessing - currently if I package foo-1.0
and it passes review I could properly upgrade to foo-2.0-0.bleeding1
on the next day w/o anyone noticing before it's too late.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20061028/225c7032/attachment.sig>