On Fri, 16 May 2014 03:27:30 +0400 Evgeniy Alekseev wrote:

On Tuesday 13 May 2014 20:20:23 Thiago Barroso Perrotta wrote:

...

Hi,

I just updated the pipe [1] PKGBUILD. There is also pipe2 [2], which is the same program, but outdated (last updated in 2012).

The best thing here would be to merge them into 'pipe2'.

If we will merge pipe into pipe2 all PKGBUILD changes will be lost. Do you want merge pipe right now?

Yes, no problem. Are you going to disown pipe2, I suppose?

On Fri, 16 May 2014 08:34:23 +0400 Evgeniy Alekseev wrote:

Unfortunately, according to our rules [1] you should contact with its current maintainer first and wait for a response for two weeks. Pipe2 have not any comments about out-of-dating and the package was marked as out-of-date just today by me. And I cannot say for sure that its current maintainer is inactive (but his last action was in 2012).

Tl;dr: if I merge it now, perhaps there will be no actual version of the package for two weeks =)

1. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_User_Repository#Other_requests

All right, I'm going to contact him. Thanks for you time =)

On Thursday, May 22, 2014 11:13:43 Thiago Barroso Perrotta wrote:

Hi,

I contacted the former maintainer and he replied to me today, now I've adopted the pipe2 package [1]. Now we can safely merge pipe [2] into pipe2.

Just to be clear: the final package wil be 'pipe2'.

[1]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/pipe2/ [2]: https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/pipe

Merged, thanks. Regards, Felix Yan

On Fri, 16 May 2014 10:16:05 +0200 Lukas Jirkovsky wrote:

I don't know the project, but isn't pipe better name that pipe2? I skimmed over the web and they sometimes refer to it as PIPE, sometimes as PIPE2, the current version is PIPEv4.x.y and the documentation says PIPE 5. This suggests that the -2 actually refers to a(n old) version and in that case "pipe" would be more appropriate. Also, in that case I could merge pipe2 into pipe immediately.

Lukas

Well, I suggested the main name of the project to be PIPE2 because both the old development website [1] and the current one [2] refer to it as PIPE2. I agree with you, all these versions seem confusing, but I find 'pipe' to be a name too generic. At least, 'pipe2' usually returns better search results with your favorite search engine than simply 'pipe'. [1]: http://pipe2.sourceforge.net/ [2]: https://github.com/sarahtattersall/PIPE