Re: [aur-general] [PRQ#16499] Deletion Request for aur-git
AUR:
Alad deleted aur-git:
Why are you submitting this again after agreeing that a name change is in order?
That was the original package which was there before the discussion, and only one day has passed. I haven't had time that fast for thinking a new name and requesting a change, which I was planning to do this very week. I suggest that you make standard in Arch waiting a couple of days for feedback before making unilateral decisions.
Em outubro 30, 2019 17:38 Alberto Salvia Novella via aur-general escreveu:
AUR:
Alad deleted aur-git:
Why are you submitting this again after agreeing that a name change is in order?
That was the original package which was there before the discussion, and only one day has passed.
I haven't had time that fast for thinking a new name and requesting a change, which I was planning to do this very week.
I suggest that you make standard in Arch waiting a couple of days for feedback before making unilateral decisions.
Today we had a discussion and we have decided to blacklist the aur (and -git) namespace, as well as, preemptive, blacklist aurweb and it's -git counterpart. The reason being it might lead to user confusion, one because it's the name of the actual repository, and the other being the name of the actual project. That goes without saying that there's a blacklist of packages that already are on the official repositories. Regards, Giancarlo Razzolini
On 10/30/19 4:38 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella via aur-general wrote:
AUR:
Alad deleted aur-git:
Why are you submitting this again after agreeing that a name change is in order?
That was the original package which was there before the discussion, and only one day has passed.
I haven't had time that fast for thinking a new name and requesting a change, which I was planning to do this very week.
There's no grace period for a package which has been determined to be in violation of our admittedly spur of the moment rules. Grace periods exist only for the specific category of packages requests for orphaning a package, since the current maintainer (usually) deserves the right to justify their continued maintenance. And even that, we can resolve early. I don't understand why, once we've decided such a name is too confusing, we should put the rule on hold while you take the time to think of a new name.
I suggest that you make standard in Arch waiting a couple of days for feedback before making unilateral decisions.
We may make unilateral decisions whenever we want, subject only to internal review by fellow team members. Unilateral decisions aren't a bad thing and don't need to be cast in a negative light. We held a meeting and a bunch of team members decided to carry out this action with no active "no" votes -- no other feedback is needed, and regular users don't get a vote. There is no point in waiting. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
I'm thinking of naming the software after "aur-publisher", while keeping the terminal command as "aur". Any observation with that? Alberto https://es20490446e.wordpress.com
Hey, I've got no input on the name at this point (after reading through everything). Just keep in mind that if you decide to keep the command 'aur', it will conflict with aurutils as mentioned before. Also, if I'd use the package I would expect a command like 'aur-publish' what is more descriptive, and if I think it is too long I'd use an alias to make it shorter. (having said that I don't know the exact functionality of your package and also this is just my personal preference) On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, 04:15 Alberto Salvia Novella via aur-general, < aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
I'm thinking of naming the software after "aur-publisher", while keeping the terminal command as "aur".
Any observation with that?
participants (4)
-
Alberto Salvia Novella
-
Attila Greguss
-
Eli Schwartz
-
Giancarlo Razzolini