Fedora 13 Release Candidate Phase

Matt McCutchen matt at mattmccutchen.net
Fri May 14 04:20:58 UTC 2010

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.


More information about the devel mailing list