On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 17:15:57 -0600 Chris Adams <cmad...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
> Once upon a time, Kevin Fenzi <ke...@scrye.com> said: > > b) unretirement > > > > This could be pretty massive changes. If something was retired years > > ago, the entire spec could be very different. Or it could have been > > yesterday. But making the time variable for re-review makes it much > > more complex. Last time we looked at this, it was an easy way to > > tell if something needed re-review. Is it orphaned? then just take > > it. Is it retired? then re-review it. > > I would think that making it release based rather than time based > should be okay. If there have been N released shipped without > package foo, then foo needs to be re-reviewed (with N being only 1 or > 2). Possibly, but that info isn't super easy to find. You would need to look at the scm-commits list to see when it was retired. kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
