On 14 December 2015 at 12:01, Ken Dreyer <ktdre...@ktdreyer.com> wrote: > 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 :( >
I think we need to find out ways to get people to work on these with you. Because that is the main issue in that we have a lot of packages that we assume are being tested but probably have none in any case. -- Stephen J Smoogen. _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
