Fedora Extras packaging beta software into production repos, why?

[Christopher Aillon]

Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:29:57 -0500, Christopher Aillon wrote:
>   
>> 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.
>>     
>
> Yes, which is questionable and asks for adjusted guidelines.
>   
wireless-tools-28-0.pre13.5.1 shipped in FC5 final because there was no 
other version that would work with the shipped kernel + NM combination 
and a "release" hadn't yet been made.  Firefox in FC3 GOLD was shipped 
as a beta (firefox-0.10.1-1.0PR1.20), as the default web browser even 
when there were other web browsers which were not beta in the 
distribution.  NetworkManager in FC4 shipped as a beta 
(NetworkManager-0.4-15.cvs20050404) because it worked better in Fedora 
than the latest release.  And those are just a small set of the packages 
I own.

>   
>> Argue about all software; don't single out beta software.
>>     
>  
> But we need to start somewhere... unless we want to see many more
> pre-release snapshots in Fedora Extras.
>   
I think this entire thread is tackling the wrong problem.  "Beta" 
versions can be as useful if not more useful at times than "release" 
versions as I've demonstrated.  Honestly, version numbers are completely 
useless other than to identify the specific set of features/code/bugs in 
a given package.  People just want software that works and don't really 
care for the most part what the version number is.  Our goal should be 
looking to avoid broken software not refusing to play with the packages 
who are wearing a strange shirt.  That CAN mean shipping "beta" 
software.  It can ALSO mean actively not shipping "release" software if 
it is known broken.  Playing version police will probably end up wasting 
people's time in explaining things that don't need to be explained, 
monitoring software versions, going through removal processes of 
packages, maybe bumping epochs, and who knows what else!

So, how do you address the real problem of making sure the software 
isn't broken before it goes out?  How about a Fedora QA/QE initiative?  
Maybe build some automated tools to help.  There has to be a way to 
attract people to testing packages before they go out.   Honestly it 
really is fun and rewarding.  If I weren't an engineer, I'd move over to 
QE.  I'm sure lots of people would enjoy it if we sell it right and make 
it easy for them to perform things which make them feel like a part of 
the community.  It can give them something to do for packages they care 
about which already have maintainers.  Or maybe even the feeling of 
getting to use the software first, before it's released.  Either way, if 
done right, it will be extremely valuable for the community, the 
distribution, and most importantly the individuals involved.