On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 09:31 +0530, Rakesh Pandit wrote: > On 14 May 2010 06:42, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:23:10PM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote: > >>Really? I don't think there's *that* many cases where a negative piece > >>of karma is filed between the submission and the push which you'd want > >>to ignore. And even in the rare cases when that happens, if we warn or > >>even unsubmit the update, it's not like you can't do anything about it. > >>If we make it a warning...ignore the warning. If we make it withdraw the > >>update...just submit it again. I'm having a hard time seeing that fall > >>apart. > > I don't know about real statistics of these kinds of reports, but In > case it is really a big number I would suggest to increase the gap > between submitting so that maintainer gets a week or few more days to > decide (reach to his mail and take a decision, whether to un-submit > the push). The maintainer can already decide when to submit for stable based on the total amount of testing he/she thinks the update needs before it is pushed. Arbitrarily lengthening the push delay would just make the process less efficient. If what you are after is a minimum time between the testing push and stable push, that is a policy question and should be considered as such. The issue Bernie raised was simply that if a negative report that merits stopping the update happens to come in while we still have the option to cancel the push, we might as well cancel it. -- Matt -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
