On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 08:58:34 -0300 rafael ff1 wrote:

IMO, shouldn't be mandatory. If you have a stable version package and user flags it because there is a new devel version or the PKGBUILD has a bug, then the problem is a misunderstanding of the OOD feature usage by the user. In this case, leave a educational comment.

i did that twice (!) during the past two weeks and still some people kept reflagging it without any notification. it seems that the comment section doesn't get a whole lot of attention if it comes to OOD flagging and the mandatory comment would be a way to ensure that. so if some other maintainers experience the same it would be something nice to have.

On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 04:19:27PM +0200, Martti Kühne wrote:

...

so if some other maintainers experience the same it would be something nice to have.

Let the ood flag be there, it doesn't hurt anyone if that's not true. You already stated it's the latest stable release in the comments, and people will eventually check and risk installing it either way. That will avoid any trolls be fed. Then you can start thinking about a feature request for improving the AUR's functionality in a way that makes some more sense. People who would flag a package out of date would write a comment like "because it's autof date"

I kind of like the idea of adding a comment field. I wondered why some package has been flagged out-of-date a couple of times and I think having an additional comment might make things easier. -1 to making it mandatory, though. Martti already gave a reason. Anyway, could you please file a feature request?

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:26:35AM +0200, nem wrote:

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:23:54 +0200 Lukas Fleischer wrote:

...

I kind of like the idea of adding a comment field. I wondered why some package has been flagged out-of-date a couple of times and I think having an additional comment might make things easier. -1 to making it mandatory, though. Martti already gave a reason.

Anyway, could you please file a feature request?

i'm not sure what you have in mind by 'additional comment' - but if someone _wants_ to make a comment, he probably will anyway in the normal comments. another commentfield just for OOD would be redundant, or am i missing your point?

A separate comment box on a separate "flag package out-of-date" page (similar to what archweb does) to * Allow for sending that comment alongside the notification mail. * Allow for linking the comment to the out-of-date flag (allows TU to quickly check for a reason without having to read all the comments). * Show some extra information about what "out-of-date" means.

Excerpts from rafael ff1's message of 2011-09-21 00:07:47 +0200:

2011/9/20 Lukas Fleischer :

...

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:26:35AM +0200, nem wrote:

...

On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:23:54 +0200 Lukas Fleischer wrote:

...

I kind of like the idea of adding a comment field. I wondered why some package has been flagged out-of-date a couple of times and I think having an additional comment might make things easier. -1 to making it mandatory, though. Martti already gave a reason.

Anyway, could you please file a feature request?

i'm not sure what you have in mind by 'additional comment' - but if someone _wants_ to make a comment, he probably will anyway in the normal comments. another commentfield just for OOD would be redundant, or am i missing your point?

A separate comment box on a separate "flag package out-of-date" page (similar to what archweb does) to

* Allow for sending that comment alongside the notification mail.

* Allow for linking the comment to the out-of-date flag (allows TU to  quickly check for a reason without having to read all the comments).

* Show some extra information about what "out-of-date" means.

Lukas, I might be wrong, but this is sort of how flagging out-of-date works in official repos, right? It sounds good. Better than being mandatory to add a comment in the comments list after flagging ood - which I disagree.

Still this assumes that the person who flags will leave a sensible comment. There's no way to guarantee that this will happen, he could leave it empty or write asdf or something equally helpful. Yes, having a sensible reason sent with the out-of-date mail would be nice, but such a field wont make sure it will help. Currently you get the reason in a second mail if the person who flags out-of-date leaves a comment, big deal. I'm not convinced we are talking about a real problem here, and I don't think the proposed solutions would really improve matters in any significant way.