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