On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:35 PM, WorMzy Tykashi <wormzy.tykashi@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, I've submitted two new btrfs packages to the AUR: btrfs-progs-unstable-integration [0] and btrfs-progs-unstable-integration-git [1], and I'd like opinions on the state of things:
a) should btrfs-progs-git [2] should be merged with btrfs-progs-unstable-integration-git, given that the latter is more true to it's name as a -git package, and the former is more of a lagging stable version of the "non-git" integration branch
or
b) should the non-git, btrfs-progs-unstable-integration package be dropped in favour of the more stable btrfs-progs-git package
or
c) should all three packages remain
or
d) should the unstables be merged into one PKGBUILD with the option to let the user choose between "stable" and "next" by setting a variable in it?
or
e) something else?
Personally, I'm happy maintaining all three packages, but I'm aware that I have just tripled the number of btrfs-progs packages in the AUR, which may cause some confusion with some users, and may be considered littering the AUR.
Some further information which may be useful:
btrfs-progs-git = stable, but stale (no commits since July 5th) btrfs-progs-unstable-integration = unstable, but known to build, snapshot of the integration-next (git) branch btrfs-progs-unstable-integration-git = most unstable, actively committed to, may not always build
Thanks.
[0] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/btrfs-progs-unstable-integration/ [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/btrfs-progs-unstable-integration-git/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/btrfs-progs-git/
I don't think we need more than a git package (with Mason tree). Our official package is already a git snapshot and Tom asked[1] to change that. [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg26611.html -- Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer https://www.seblu.net GPG: 0x2072D77A