Fedora Extras packaging beta software into production repos, why?

[Christopher Aillon]

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.