On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 09:56:29PM +0300, Ionuț Bîru wrote:

On 09/05/2010 04:54 PM, Brad Fanella wrote:

...

Hi everyone,

I have a few popular packages I would be interested in moving to and maintaining in [community]. However, I recall reading somewhere that AUR software that includes a patch is typically not accepted in community until the upstream developers fix/merge the patches into the software and release it. Is this correct, or am I being misled?

Thanks, Brad

usually we accept patches that fixes compilation issues or functionally if the patches are accepted upstream.

we don't accept patches that extends the applications and haven't been accepted upstream

-- Ionuț

I see. So as long as a patch isn't adding new features that haven't been built in the package upstream (or something similar), then it is perfectly fine to include it? Thanks for clearing things up.

On Sun 05 Sep 2010 22:49 +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:

Arch TUs are generally considered to be the ultimate nightmare of any upstream maintainer. We come in the night, nagging with patches until all known upstream problems are fixed.

Do not stop trying to get your patches into upstream.

Hell yeah!

On 06.09.2010 08:42, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:

On Sun, 2010-09-05 at 21:03 -0400, Loui Chang wrote:

...

On Sun 05 Sep 2010 22:49 +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:

...

Arch TUs are generally considered to be the ultimate nightmare of any upstream maintainer. We come in the night, nagging with patches until all known upstream problems are fixed.

Do not stop trying to get your patches into upstream. Hell yeah!

Sven-Hendrik's post should be plastered on the wall of every TU (and Arch user, actually) =)

Any objections to putting the quote in its entirety on the wiki for TUs?

None at all. :)

On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 10:11 -0500, Brad Fanella wrote:

2010/9/6 Sven-Hendrik Haase

...

On 06.09.2010 08:42, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:

...

On Sun, 2010-09-05 at 21:03 -0400, Loui Chang wrote:

...

On Sun 05 Sep 2010 22:49 +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:

...

Arch TUs are generally considered to be the ultimate nightmare of any upstream maintainer. We come in the night, nagging with patches until all known upstream problems are fixed.

Do not stop trying to get your patches into upstream. Hell yeah!

Sven-Hendrik's post should be plastered on the wall of every TU (and Arch user, actually) =)

Any objections to putting the quote in its entirety on the wiki for TUs?

None at all. :)

I was actually planning on making that my forum signature! :-P However, that is crucial information and needs to be included in the wiki.

Done. May need polishing =) http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines#The_TU.27s_m...

On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 08:17 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote:

2010/9/6 Ng Oon-Ee :

...

On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 10:11 -0500, Brad Fanella wrote:

...

2010/9/6 Sven-Hendrik Haase

...

On 06.09.2010 08:42, Ng Oon-Ee wrote:

...

On Sun, 2010-09-05 at 21:03 -0400, Loui Chang wrote:

...

On Sun 05 Sep 2010 22:49 +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote: > Arch TUs are generally considered to be the ultimate nightmare of any > upstream maintainer. We come in the night, nagging with patches until > all known upstream problems are fixed. > > Do not stop trying to get your patches into upstream. Hell yeah!

Sven-Hendrik's post should be plastered on the wall of every TU (and Arch user, actually) =)

Any objections to putting the quote in its entirety on the wiki for TUs?

None at all. :)

I was actually planning on making that my forum signature! :-P However, that is crucial information and needs to be included in the wiki.

Done. May need polishing =)

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines#The_TU.27s_m...

Sorry, but however awesome Sven is, that kind of content does not fit in that page. I have slightly changed the wording of the introductory paragraph for the "desired effect"; see wiki diff.

Understood =). The comment is still awesome though. Would it be acceptable for 'communicating with and sending patches upstream as needed' to contain a link to the ML post?

On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 10:17 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote:

2010/9/7 Ng Oon-Ee :

...

On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 08:17 +0800, Ray Rashif wrote:

...

2010/9/6 Ng Oon-Ee :

...

On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 10:11 -0500, Brad Fanella wrote:

...

2010/9/6 Sven-Hendrik Haase

...

On 06.09.2010 08:42, Ng Oon-Ee wrote: > On Sun, 2010-09-05 at 21:03 -0400, Loui Chang wrote: >> On Sun 05 Sep 2010 22:49 +0200, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote: >>> Arch TUs are generally considered to be the ultimate nightmare of any >>> upstream maintainer. We come in the night, nagging with patches until >>> all known upstream problems are fixed. >>> >>> Do not stop trying to get your patches into upstream. >> Hell yeah! >> > Sven-Hendrik's post should be plastered on the wall of every TU (and > Arch user, actually) =) > > Any objections to putting the quote in its entirety on the wiki for TUs? > > None at all. :)

I was actually planning on making that my forum signature! :-P However, that is crucial information and needs to be included in the wiki.

Done. May need polishing =)

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/AUR_Trusted_User_Guidelines#The_TU.27s_m...

Sorry, but however awesome Sven is, that kind of content does not fit in that page. I have slightly changed the wording of the introductory paragraph for the "desired effect"; see wiki diff.

Understood =). The comment is still awesome though. Would it be acceptable for 'communicating with and sending patches upstream as needed' to contain a link to the ML post?

Sure. In fact, since there are no other examples I can recall for the sake of citation, that _was_ my intention (which somehow skipped my keyboard).

Done. There seems to be a spacing issue on my browser after the link, is that standard?