On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 03:36 Giancarlo Razzolini <grazzolini@gmail.com> wrote: Em 12-08-2015 14:21, Justin Dray escreveu:
But by 'hidden' it also deletes all comments and votes, and stops people being able to search for the package, see that it isn't maintained and picking it up.
Well, the TU could have waited, I give you that.
Almost all of my packages have become mine by trying to install something, finding it useful, and when it became an orphan, just taking it over and fixing it up.
This is how I ended up maintaining quite a few packages. But I didn't waited for them to become orphan, in most cases.
If we wanted to delete packages we would have asked for deletion, not orphaned it. What is the point of orphaning packages if they are just going to get deleted anyway?
Now this is were I fail to see the point. If you still wanted/needed the package, why orphan it? I'm perfectly happy with the way AUR works today. But, if you guys really want orphaned packages to stay around for some time, I suggest you guys implement it and send a diff. Perhaps something that prevents even a TU from deleting (hiding) a orphaned package that isn't orphan long enough, lets say, a couple of months. Cheers, Giancarlo Razzolini Perhaps seeing active comments or that the packages had to have been updated within month since everything was cleared for AUR4? We already have a mechanism for disowning a package and allowing others to maintain it without deleting it. It's called orphaning. The problem here is that how they are treated has apparently changed with no community involvement or even a warning that orphan packages will be deleted at random. Perhaps if TUs are able to view the last updated time from a search fable, they could see an orphaned package with no updates for X months. But as has been said before, orphaned does not mean useless or broken. - Justin