-----Original Message-----
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:09:30 +0100 Subject: Re: [aur-general] Discussion period - Moving [community] to use same system as main repos From: "Aaron Griffin" To: "AUR general"
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:41 PM, stefan-husmann@t-online.de wrote:
And if the devels decide to switch from cvs to svn the TUs would have to alter their tools anyway, regardless of any proposal. There are goals behind this first step.
This is 100% incorrect. We *did* switch to SVN a long time ago and left community in the dust. Community is still (sadly) CVS-based. No one cares about the community tools. That's the big thing here. Everyone just wants to use it. I know *I'm* not going to go out of my way to fix community issues when I don't even use community on a regular basis. If community tracked the official tools, you would get the benefit of work that is done by people who care about the tools.
Okay, if it is only the move from one tool to another then let 's do it. But what I wanted to make clear is that I do not agree with all the reasons on the wiki for doing so.
I always thought that Arch users used Arch because they cared about things from a technical point of view. Why did this become a political issue? Can you explain what you see going wrong here?
I tried to explain that in my first post. This is a community driven distro, as often mentioned in the forums, and to be that it needs contact between users who want to use makepkg and other users who, trusted or not, have more experience in packaging. It should not be first goal of a TU to become a Developer, but to help people in AUR and to put well written and popular packages to a repo.
Like, let's assume we go through with the proposal. Things are
"decoupled" and all
that fun stuff. What do you lose? What do users lose?
Please do not name something "fun stuff" just because you do not agree. It is no fun for me. That is not the way people should discuss things. I think I made clear that I am afraid to loose contact to the users. Loui said something that led me to the conclusion that this fears may be not well founded.
Regards Stefan
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 4:50 PM, stefan-husmann@t-online.de stefan-husmann@t-online.de wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:09:30 +0100 Subject: Re: [aur-general] Discussion period - Moving [community] to use same system as main repos From: "Aaron Griffin" To: "AUR general"
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:41 PM, stefan-husmann@t-online.de wrote:
And if the devels decide to switch from cvs to svn the TUs would have to alter their tools anyway, regardless of any proposal. There are goals behind this first step.
This is 100% incorrect. We *did* switch to SVN a long time ago and left community in the dust. Community is still (sadly) CVS-based. No one cares about the community tools. That's the big thing here. Everyone just wants to use it. I know *I'm* not going to go out of my way to fix community issues when I don't even use community on a regular basis. If community tracked the official tools, you would get the benefit of work that is done by people who care about the tools.
Okay, if it is only the move from one tool to another then let 's do it. But what I wanted to make clear is that I do not agree with all the reasons on the wiki for doing so.
The technical move will, most likely, cause other unforseen things. The fact that TUs will now have shell accounts and actual access to the SVN repo will have an impact in the long run.
I always thought that Arch users used Arch because they cared about things from a technical point of view. Why did this become a political issue? Can you explain what you see going wrong here?
I tried to explain that in my first post. This is a community driven distro, as often mentioned in the forums, and to be that it needs contact between users who want to use makepkg and other users who, trusted or not, have more experience in packaging. It should not be first goal of a TU to become a Developer, but to help people in AUR and to put well written and popular packages to a repo.
This argument is always an iffy one. It's community oriented and ANYONE can make a repo and ANYONE can write a web frontend to do these things. The fact is that the "community oriented" part of this falls really short because community is still: * Using the archlinux server * Relying on work by the archlinux developers * Not being worked on, by the community
Take a look at the arch-games repo. That is a *true* community oriented project. As is kdemod, archlive, and many many others. That is the community, using what we provide and expanding on it.
The point is: if you want to take the "community oriented" point to its fullest then put it on a "community backed" server. Where are the "community based" code contributions?
I really don't understand how this point comes up over and over again, but rarely does the "community" participates beyond just uploading stuff. To quote Lawrence Lessig: Participatory culture only works if you participate.
Please do not name something "fun stuff" just because you do not agree. It is no fun for me. That is not the way people should discuss things. I think I made clear that I am afraid to loose contact to the users. Loui said something that led me to the conclusion that this fears may be not well founded.
Err, the usage of "fun stuff" is just a phrase. I implied no emotive meaning there - sorry if you took it the wrong way. Let me rephrase:
Like, let's assume we go through with the proposal. Things are "decoupled" and all of the other things listed in previous mails and on the wiki page. What do you lose? What do users lose?
This was intended to be a serious question. It's easy to say "oh, I don't like that", but I'd like to know why. I want you to _convince_ me. Proof, examples, etc etc
Hello again,
This was intended to be a serious question. It's easy to say "oh, I don't like that", but I'd like to know why. I want you to _convince_ me. Proof, examples, etc etc
Browse the AUR comment pages. See how people are advised by TUs or other users to do things better. This kind of contact is it that I want to have. Not all of us are developers, and "uploading stuff" is a contribution! Also bugreporting. Surely, a repo like kdemod may be a bigger one, but also small ones are to be appreciated.
Regards Stefan
stefan-husmann@t-online.de wrote:
Hello again,
This was intended to be a serious question. It's easy to say "oh, I don't like that", but I'd like to know why. I want you to _convince_ me. Proof, examples, etc etc
Browse the AUR comment pages. See how people are advised by TUs or other users to do things better. This kind of contact is it that I want to have. Not all of us are developers, and "uploading stuff" is a contribution! Also bugreporting. Surely, a repo like kdemod may be a bigger one, but also small ones are to be appreciated.
I'm getting lost as to what the point here. We can still advise users about their packages on the AUR. They just can not advise us on our [community] packages without making a bug report. I like that because whenever a user makes a comment on the AUR page that I have to deal with, it requires me to bookmark the page or else it will be forgotten. The bug tracker has a nice feature where I can list all bugs assigned to me, so feature requests/bug reports files there never get lost.
Allan
The most important part of the proposal (in my viewpoint), is clearly stated at the bottom of the Wiki page:
"The most important objective of this proposal is to make [community] use the same infrastructure (devtools, etc.) as the Arch official repositories [core] and [extra]. Technical details about how the transition is to be made (whether [community] and AUR should be totally decoupled, for example) need to be discussed."
It's not that if the proposal is implemented, the next day there'll be a sudden shift in the way things work, and that the votes and comments will all disappear into a puff of thin air. There's no timeframe in this proposal, and we can slowly prepare for the shift to the new infrastructure, while making code adjustments to the AUR to keep the concerns of users and other trusted users in mind.
Loui says that votes and comments can still be kept in the AUR, with some adjustment to the [community] scripts; sure, it'll take some time, but we've already been using the dated community tools for so long that a few more months of using it won't hurt, if it means that we can preserve everything else.
aur-general@lists.archlinux.org