It's the same reason packages like 'google-chrome-beta'  and 'google-chrome-dev'  exist, it's just so users can use more cutting-edge releases if they so choose. I just use '-beta' and '-alpha' as my version of the '-beta' and '-dev' versions, they're all part of my actual program's Git repository, they're just named such to describe the nature of the release.
I could see the possible confusion with it being thought that these were prerelease-like versions that are just temporary codenames that'll be obsoleted by new ones in the future, but again, this could easily have been seen by looking at the PKGBUILDs, and equally as important at the upstream repository .
Again, I'm not trying to create a bunch of drama, I'm just really wanting to know how this deletion could have even been submitted if everything was properly checked, as this becomes quite an issue when I'm wanting these packages to be reliably available to end users.
---- On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 18:52:50 -0600 Kevin Morris via aur-general firstname.lastname@example.org wrote ----
I can't speak for grawlinson, but I did want to bring up a point that, off the top of my head, might be a reason for deletion requests.
In software, `alpha` is used for a release before a `beta` or a straight up release. `beta` is used in the same way, but is more tightly coupled directly behind an official release.
Most of the time, projects do the following: 1. Release alpha, get testing done. 2. Release beta, obsolete alpha, get testing done. 3. Release for real, obsolete alpha/beta which was previously released.
So, normally, alpha and beta packages are just earlier versions of their non-alpha or non-beta counterparts. What is the exact point of your `-alpha` and `-beta` packages if `makedeb` exists and can be used?