On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 16:48:57 -0400 Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:36:30 -0500 > Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > There is a difference in having an arbitrary timeout because something > > didn't get upstreamed and having a module be orphaned. If the > > maintainer is still fighting to get it upstream and it hasn't happened > > yet, I see no reason to arbitrarily tell them "too bad, you didn't > > meet the timeout." > > > Well, I didn't want the timeout to be a flat "sod off", I wanted it to > be another review point. If they're still fighting and there is > progress, no reason not to extend it for another release. IF they've > sat on their duff and done nothing, well... Yeah. See, this is where we have to trust davej and cebbert to correctly evaluate whether the maintainer is going to stick it out or not. If I were them, I wouldn't be overly trusting. It's a lot to ask of the kernel guys. But maybe they don't mind. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
