On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 3:16 AM, Ken Dreyer <ktdre...@ktdreyer.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> 2) Automatic unpushing of updates that haven't gone stable after X >>> time (I propose 3 months/90 days here). That should be ample time to >>> know if it's good/bad. >> >> Could we make it go the other way, and submit the update to stable if >> it's received no feedback for 90 days? > > No, because on two of the 3 I referenced there was bad karma and no > response from the "maintainer" to the feedback.
Oh, if there's negative karma I think it should be unpushed. I was envisioning a scenario where there's zero karma. >> Often I'll let my update sit in epel-testing for a long time because I >> want to give users a large window of opportunity to test the update. >> It's not that it's abandoned, it's just that it's not an urgent >> update, so why rush it? If the update hits the karma threshold earlier >> than I expected, so much the better. > > I think 90 days is enough to let people test it, ultimately the > maintainer should have done the testing and know the vast majority of > it is good, it should be more to get non standard use cases, corner > cases etc. Ideally that's the case, but I maintain several packages that I no longer have the capacity to test on old RHEL versions :( - Ken _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
