On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 13:44 -0500, Eric Rostetter wrote: > I'm not against the timeout, in fact there is supposed to be a timeout > in the process, though I don't remember what it is. Perhaps we need to > revisit the timeout issue, with the goal of putting someone in charge of > watching the packages for timeout conditions. Right now, no one is AFAIK > watching for such situations, so even if something had multiple verify votes > and has stalled, no one notices and pushes it out. Seems like another > essential job waiting to be filled. I agree to the timeout. Let's decide on this list what that timeout should be and I'll watch for it. Marc.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
