Reindl Harald wrote:
i am not entirely sure how that is meant
* disable the automatism to push to stable
* forget the whole karma system at all
in case of "disable the automatism to push to stable" i agree
Even just doing that would be an improvement, but I still think the whole
karma system should go away entirely and the maintainers should have the
call.
in my opinion karma is a indication for the maintainer but not
the decision - the karma has to be handeled differently for the
same package and different updates and only the maintainer can
decide that *as person*
why?
because it depends on the change itself
I totally agree that the maintainer should be the one making the call!
That's why I want the karma stuff removed. :-)
What's the point of keeping that number if we drop the silly Update
Policies? Shouldn't the maintainer actually READ the comments instead of
basing the decision on an arbitrary algebraic sum of unweighted +1 and -1
terms?
speaking with my developer hat on: there are updates on software
inside our company where i do not hestitate a single seconds deploy
the new CMS version to some hundrets of customers without tell anybody
there was a update at all because *i know* there can be no bad impact
on the other hand there are updates and changes which needs to prepare
any singel webhost, rollout a small update to prepare the real one by
add database colums not used currently but need to be there in the time
window files are replaced and database scheme can be updated
the second case is for not have any single request going wrong
and there is another category where all the work above has to be done
and tested thousands of times but still need a "keep your eyes open"
after it is done because you can't test and verify every single action
a complex software may do with every possible input data
+1
Kevin Kofler