On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > In theory yes, but the real world is far messier than that. There are a few packages that I maintain in EPEL because a package I needed depend on it, but I don't use the functionality. So I know the package I use works but I've never exercised/tested the functionality of the depended on package. I wish that I had time for that to not be the case, but sadly that's just the reality of the situation.
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
