On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Johannes Löthberg <johannes@kyriasis.com> wrote:
On 17/08, Ido Rosen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Lukas Fleischer <archlinux@cryptocrack.de> wrote:
* Dynamically connect each AUR package to a repository, so that it is easy to switch to a new repository if someone maintains a fork of the same package somewhere. Means we are going to lose all comments, bug tickets, ...
Why would you lose all comments/bugs/tickets? Why do those have to be in the same repository as the packages themselves?
Because then we'd either need two repos per package or one repo that had the bug reports of all the AUR packages, both would be rather bad solutions.
Why would comments and bugs need to be managed in Git to begin with? GitHub and other services do sometimes have a handy issues.git repository (e.g. I can clone http://github.com/ido/packages-archlinux.issues.git ), but I don't think the backing store is Git in those cases...? Having a Git interface to that data is handy but does imply having a separate "git repo". Using Git as a backing store for comments/bugs might be inelegant/not very KISS. Also, to delete a comment in the comment history if it's maintained in Git would you resort to a non-fast-forward update? Don't interpret my questions as discouragement, just seems like using Git for *everything* is a bit myopic.
-- Sincerely, Johannes Löthberg PGP Key ID: 3A9D0BB5