On 04/14/2011 09:19 AM, Peter Lewis wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, J. W. Birdsong wrote:
On 04/12/11 at 10:00pm, Stefan Husmann wrote:
On 12.04.2011 08:58, Peter Lewis wrote:
Done a bit of research...
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Stefan Husmann wrote:
irssi (VCS) * irssi-svn https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=6163 * irssi-git https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25781
These both seem "official", though the main website points to the SVN repo and not the git one. However, it seems many contributors are using git since it's easier to send in patches etc. I couldn't find out how often they're synced, but I assume it's pretty regular. So, it's probably worth either keeping both, or just going with git only.
I prefer maintaining svn-versions over git-versions in AUR, because the have revision numbers as $pkgver, not just a date.
Regards Stefan
I maintain irssi-svn, but only picked it up some time ago because it needed fix/updating. So no big deal if y'all decide it should go. I suppose as the discussion on this has grown cold I'll assume we're going to keep both? Seem no real conscience was reached.
It probably doesn't matter if we keep both, since both are official, as long as both work. So long as maintainers don't feel that their efforts are wasted, that is... (admittedly maintaining a -svn or -git package in the AUR requires minimal effort.)
I'll drop/delete it if needed. JB
It's not needed, and given Stefan's message, some people will use it. It's up to you, as a maintainer, I'd say. Do you have reasons for not using -git?
Pete.
Absolutely none. I'm actually more comfortable/familiar w/ git. Although Stephan's point about revision numbers is an EXCELLENT point. As I said previously I only picked package up because it was orphaned and needed fix/update (don't remember which). Going on AUR votes only it seems to be the more popular package. Will keep it around (for now :) ) Thanks to all