On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 09:19, Chris Brannon <cmbrannon@cox.net> wrote:
When applying, point out the work that *you* have done. Mention those packages that you contributed, I.E., those that aren't adopted. If you put some serious effort into an adopted package, mention that as well. What have you done that makes you proud? Tell us about it.
-- Chris
+1 On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 09:25, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
I am going to be fairly blunt here, but essentially you are wrong....
<snip>
As Jens pointed out, he no longer maintains this. But at this point, that is moot. He maintained it when he applied and the TUs did not know him very well in general so we needed to rely on his packaging skill to judge his application. The consensus opinion of the TUs was obviously that his package standards were not high enough and I have no doubt that this package was primarily to blame.
So, for future reference, here is my subjectiveview of what should have happened after this package was pointed out as bad: 1) a reply to aur-general saying "I will look into it". If it was fixable, good. If not then... 2) a reply saying, "This is very difficult to fix. I am discussing this with my sponsor. Any suggestions on how to improve it?". 3) possibly delaying of voting until it is shown that the issue is fixed.
I see the ability to know when you have a bad PKGBUILD or other problem and then asking for help to be far more important than the ability to produce perfect packages. Remember, once someone is a TU, they will be providing the community with binary packages. It is essential that the Trusted Users ensure any new applicant is up to standard. Any doubt is enough to say no.
Allan
+1