Fedora Extras packaging beta software into production repos, why?

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 14:53:43 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:

> > This must not mean that a stable release is used to pass the review
> > process only to upgrade to a beta afterwards without giving good
> > reason. Right?
> > 
> 
> That depends on the afterwards, 2 days later no that is seriously
> abusing the process, but 6 months later if the packager finds he has a
> good reason yes, once again we have to trust each other!

Again, this is splitting-hairs.

And once more, even if an upgrade to a beta is done 6 months later, the
reason for such an upgrade can be documented in the %changelog. 

Afterall, the packager overrules upstream's release scheme. Sometimes much
disliked by upstream developers when they discover that a distribution
includes a pre-release. Why not document the decision?

> >> Its quite simple: motivated and educated packagers good, bureaucracy bad!
> > 
> > Motivation is a rather vague term here. Too much "wrong motivation" can
> > easily lead to over-ambitious packaging and then is bad, too.
> > 
> 
> Once again this all boils down to trust, and we can't trust each other
> we might as well stop FE right here and now!

The step you're missing is the time it takes to build up trust.

We are at a level where we still see ABI breakage in upgrades for FE5 or
FE6. Usually, the spec changelog says nothing else than "Update to 2.x",
and only afterwards, the reported breakage is cleaned up with rebuilds.
No comment on whether the ABI breakage was expected or not. If breakage
was expected, I would hope for at least a warning the in spec changelog.
And that would increase trust in the packager.

In one mail, you wrote:

> Yes, so we need high quality packagers, we need to educate them, no
> system is 100% error free,

So, obviously there are different levels of trust. One level is to trust
a packager's good intentions. Another level is to trust his capabilities.

What is so difficult about requesting packagers to be more verbose in
spec changelog comments _and_ reviews? It is not bureaucracy where you
depend on somebody else's decision. You just document "your stuff" and
be done.