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. > 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. _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
