changes are needed, we need keep moving

[Marc Deslauriers]

On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 13:44 -0500, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> I'm not against the timeout, in fact there is supposed to be a timeout
> in the process, though I don't remember what it is.  Perhaps we need to
> revisit the timeout issue, with the goal of putting someone in charge of
> watching the packages for timeout conditions.  Right now, no one is AFAIK
> watching for such situations, so even if something had multiple verify votes
> and has stalled, no one notices and pushes it out.  Seems like another
> essential job waiting to be filled.

I agree to the timeout. Let's decide on this list what that timeout
should be and I'll watch for it.

Marc.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/attachments/20050602/b69ce4f1/attachment.sig>