Fedora Extras packaging beta software into production repos, why?

[Gianluca Sforna]

On 10/28/06, Josh Boyer <jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-10-28 at 16:58 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 09:56:09 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> >
> > This topic came to a sudden end on the same day it was started, without a
> > clear resolution and without any conclusion on whether including beta
> > versions of some software is "okay" in this case.
> >
> > Has FESCo looked into this?
>
> No.  And I don't think we should.
>
> Theoretically, the maintainers of the packages know best as to how
> stable the software they are packaging is, what the timeline for said
> beta is to reach production, etc.  If another maintainer questions this,
> then open a bug report against the package explaining why.

I agree. It's not FESCO's call to decide if a given package is OK even if beta.

>
> That being said, my personal opinion is that "beta" or pre-release
> packages should only be done in the devel branch, and only if that beta
> has a really good chance of becoming an actual release before the devel
> branch is forked for the next Extras release.

This seems sane, and IMHO could be formalized in the packaging
guidelines, at least as a SHOULD item.

>
> As for the third party repo aspect of this, that is quite difficult.
> There are potentially tons of third party repos, which already conflict
> with each other.  We cannot show preference for one or the other.  That
> does not mean that a third party repository maintainer cannot open a
> bug.  It just means that we cannot expect Extras maintainers to go
> looking for problems in each and every third party repo before updating
> something.
>

Axel made clear he was not seeking for any kind of "preference" for
its own repo.

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).

This could give enough time to interested parties for joining the
review and commenting _before_ the package is imported and built.