On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 14:58 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote: > If a package doesn't get a fair chance to be picked up before dropped, > I'd say that's broken. While dropping [0] may be a bit rough, personally I think it worked well as a trigger for someone to actually step up in the NetworkManager-vpnc case. > Or, if an auxiliary process such as mass rebuilding gets free reign > to ignore other processes, then that is broken. Agreed, but I don't think that's what has happened. The rebuild time slot length was intentionally aligned with the maintainer AWOL policy definitions. Some planned post-rebuild/release-preparation actions were actually loosened for a bunch of packages that were orphaned too late when comparing the time we generally reserve for orphaned package takeover to the time we had left until the FC6 release. The time between orphaning not-taken-care-of packages and removing their package files from the repo could have been a bit longer, but aggressively cleaning up orphans this way from devel has been done pretty much all the time anyway. Remove early, remove often in devel ;) - that gives other contributors more time to react before the next release. Anyway, there's definitely quite a few things we can improve in future release preparations and all feedback is valuable, thanks! [0] Even when defined and occurred as "removing only the rpm files from the development repository according to the plan announced well beforehand and separately warned about several times on two lists before it actually took place". -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
