Fedora 13 Release Candidate Phase

[Matt McCutchen]

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