Fedora Extras packaging beta software into production repos, why?

[Jeffrey C. Ollie]

On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 16:07 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > No, I'm not going to battle this, and there is no way to "pause" this,
> > > after someone's "go" it's was blitz-reviewed and pushed into the repo
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > in lightning speed - I wish my FE packages would slide in like that.
> > 
> > zaptel and libpri were not "blitz reviewed".  The review requests have
> > been in bugzilla since January of 2006. [...]

And again, I've seen a number FE packages have a review request opened,
been reviewed and been imported in less time than the zaptel and libpri
packages took (even if you only count the time between the first posting
of 1.4.0 beta review packages and the importation).  There have been
months and months for people to add themselves to the CC lists of the
bugzilla tickets so that they could be kept abreast of developments.
There has been a lot of discussion in the FESCo meetings.

Even if I had stayed with 1.2.X packages there would have been problems
coexisting with the atrpms repository...

Jeff
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20061025/64bfdc69/attachment.sig>