Hi all,
To get this moving along, I would like to start the official discussion period. Standard rules, 5 days discussion, 7 days voting, 75% quorum. If discussion raises some points which really need to be addressed before a vote then it can be delayed.
Abhishek has mad a good summary with some additions by Loui at http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Community_move_to_devtools .
I am very much in favour of this move as it will allow use to use [testing] for community packages, which remove the current problems we have during big rebuilds. It also means that any other changes made to the repos (e.g. arch=any packages, delta support to name my favourites) only needs to be made in one place. I also like the idea of the AUR being just unsupported packages and (despite not actually contributing code to the AUR) I have the feeling that this separation would make AUR development cleaner.
Loosing the ability for users to leave comments about a package on the AUR is not a big deal for me as I think most of these should probably go to the bug tracker where they will not get lost. The concern about autonomy of the TUs is difficult for me to judge being a dev too, but given ~1/3 TUs are devs...
Allan
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Allan McRae allan@archlinux.org wrote:
Hi all,
To get this moving along, I would like to start the official discussion period. Standard rules, 5 days discussion, 7 days voting, 75% quorum. If discussion raises some points which really need to be addressed before a vote then it can be delayed.
Abhishek has mad a good summary with some additions by Loui at http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Community_move_to_devtools .
I am very much in favour of this move as it will allow use to use [testing] for community packages, which remove the current problems we have during big rebuilds. It also means that any other changes made to the repos (e.g. arch=any packages, delta support to name my favourites) only needs to be made in one place. I also like the idea of the AUR being just unsupported packages and (despite not actually contributing code to the AUR) I have the feeling that this separation would make AUR development cleaner.
Loosing the ability for users to leave comments about a package on the AUR is not a big deal for me as I think most of these should probably go to the bug tracker where they will not get lost. The concern about autonomy of the TUs is difficult for me to judge being a dev too, but given ~1/3 TUs are devs...
Added some notes regarding what will happen on the backend of things.
2009/1/9 Allan McRae allan@archlinux.org:
Hi all,
To get this moving along, I would like to start the official discussion period. Standard rules, 5 days discussion, 7 days voting, 75% quorum. If discussion raises some points which really need to be addressed before a vote then it can be delayed.
Abhishek has mad a good summary with some additions by Loui at http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Community_move_to_devtools .
I am very much in favour of this move as it will allow use to use [testing] for community packages, which remove the current problems we have during big rebuilds. It also means that any other changes made to the repos (e.g. arch=any packages, delta support to name my favourites) only needs to be made in one place. I also like the idea of the AUR being just unsupported packages and (despite not actually contributing code to the AUR) I have the feeling that this separation would make AUR development cleaner.
Loosing the ability for users to leave comments about a package on the AUR is not a big deal for me as I think most of these should probably go to the bug tracker where they will not get lost. The concern about autonomy of the TUs is difficult for me to judge being a dev too, but given ~1/3 TUs are devs...
I'm very much in favour of this too +1
I do not have much to add and i totally agree with this move. +1
-- Hugo
I have no concerns.
[community]++
Allan McRae wrote:
Hi all,
To get this moving along, I would like to start the official discussion period. Standard rules, 5 days discussion, 7 days voting, 75% quorum. If discussion raises some points which really need to be addressed before a vote then it can be delayed.
Abhishek has mad a good summary with some additions by Loui at http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Community_move_to_devtools .
I am very much in favour of this move as it will allow use to use [testing] for community packages, which remove the current problems we have during big rebuilds. It also means that any other changes made to the repos (e.g. arch=any packages, delta support to name my favourites) only needs to be made in one place. I also like the idea of the AUR being just unsupported packages and (despite not actually contributing code to the AUR) I have the feeling that this separation would make AUR development cleaner.
Loosing the ability for users to leave comments about a package on the AUR is not a big deal for me as I think most of these should probably go to the bug tracker where they will not get lost. The concern about autonomy of the TUs is difficult for me to judge being a dev too, but given ~1/3 TUs are devs...
Allan
Sounds good to me. +1
Caution : If users are not supposed to get involved in this discussion , please stop reading and move on .
I would like to share my opinion from a user prospective .
* The proposal is nothing but great for users If the potential benefits actually get implemented (e.g [community-testing] and on the long run using deltas) .
* The comment system in the AUR provides a great source of information . If It's up to me , I would enable comments for all packages including the [core] and [extra] packages but maybe in a separate page from the AUR . If I understand Loui Chang's comment correctly , that's actually doable .
Benefits of comments : 1) the maintainer can state the reason why he is not upgrading a package ( e.g "I will not upgrade libfoo due to major changes in the API that would break other packages" ) and he might get some useful feedback . 2) Users & maintainers can exchange useful information about modifying the PKGBUILD ( e.g enabling or disabling a specific compile-time feature) . 3) Discussing issues and problems that don't qualify as bugs and doesn't require a package rebuild ( e.g "the latest version of appfoo uses a new syntax in '~/.appfoorc' . If you're having issues , please remove the file" ) . 4) Central place for discussing the state of the package in general .
----------------- Nezmer Nezmer@gmail.com
Hi TUs,
Time to vote on this. Discussion period thread can be viewed here: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2009-January/003477.html
Allan
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 04:15, Allan McRae allan@archlinux.org wrote:
Time to vote on this. Discussion period thread can be viewed here: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2009-January/003477.html
My life has been been pretty uncumbered by "primary" objectives and various pointless events for the last month or so, so I didn't even see the discussion. That's why I choose to answer in this thread, even if very late.
My own opinion, as someone who just discovered the main repos tools after a few months using the [community] tools only: THEY ROCK. There seem by far technically superior: way cleaner and based on ssh, subversion, etc.
That being said, it takes time to discover them, and they don't provide a BIG gain of time as a user.
So I think the biggest point is the maintaining issues: is the effort necessary to switch worth ending the duplication of changes in the repos db format?
As I have absolutely no idea, I abstain.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 08:34:28AM +0100, Geoffroy Carrier wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 04:15, Allan McRae allan@archlinux.org wrote:
Time to vote on this. Discussion period thread can be viewed here: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2009-January/003477.html
As I have absolutely no idea, I abstain.
Did you use the AUR web interface for voting? The proposal needs one more vote to reach the requested 75% quorum.
-----Original Message-----
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:20:03 +0100 Subject: Re: [aur-general] Vote - Moving [community] to use same system as main repos From: Loui Chang louipc.ist@gmail.com To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" aur-general@archlinux.org
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 08:34:28AM +0100, Geoffroy Carrier wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 04:15, Allan McRae allan@archlinux.org wrote:
Time to vote on this. Discussion period thread can be viewed here:
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2009-January/003477.html
As I have absolutely no idea, I abstain.
Did you use the AUR web interface for voting? The proposal needs one more vote to reach the requested 75% quorum.
Mayme that happend in the last hours where i went asleep, but I see 23 of 24 TU having voted, so the quorum shuold have been reached.
Regards Stefan
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:51 PM, stefan-husmann@t-online.de stefan-husmann@t-online.de wrote:
-----Original Message-----
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:20:03 +0100 Subject: Re: [aur-general] Vote - Moving [community] to use same system as main repos From: Loui Chang louipc.ist@gmail.com To: "Discussion about the Arch User Repository (AUR)" aur-general@archlinux.org
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 08:34:28AM +0100, Geoffroy Carrier wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 04:15, Allan McRae allan@archlinux.org wrote:
Time to vote on this. Discussion period thread can be viewed here:
http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2009-January/003477.html
As I have absolutely no idea, I abstain.
Did you use the AUR web interface for voting? The proposal needs one more vote to reach the requested 75% quorum.
Mayme that happend in the last hours where i went asleep, but I see 23 of 24 TU having voted, so the quorum shuold have been reached.
Regards Stefan
TU/Devs didn't appears in AUR like TUs, and they can vote too so the total of the TU Crew are 28 according the wiki page [0], so let's wait then :-)
[0] http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Trusted_Users
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:56:45PM +0100, Angel Velásquez wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:51 PM, stefan-husmann@t-online.de stefan-husmann@t-online.de wrote:
Did you use the AUR web interface for voting? The proposal needs one more vote to reach the requested 75% quorum.
Mayme that happend in the last hours where i went asleep, but I see 23 of 24 TU having voted, so the quorum shuold have been reached.
TU/Devs didn't appears in AUR like TUs, and they can vote too so the total of the TU Crew are 28 according the wiki page [0], so let's wait then :-)
Yeah quorum has been reached now.
Allan McRae wrote:
Hi TUs,
Time to vote on this. Discussion period thread can be viewed here: http://archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2009-January/003477.html
And the vote is over. 23 yes, 2 no, 2 abstain. So the motion is passed.
Some of the technical details on how this should be dealt with have been addressed on the wiki page: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Community_move_to_devtools#Technical_ste...
I can handle the ABS changes (which will be very minor). If someone else has time to do the devtools/db-scripts changes (again, should be reasonably small) then go for it, otherwise I can probably do this too.
As far as the web changes go, I suggest the relevant AUR developers talk to the people who do the Arch site work and sort this out.
And the server admins will need to deal with figuring out account creation, access permissions, etc...
Allan
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Allan McRae allan@archlinux.org wrote:
I can handle the ABS changes (which will be very minor). If someone else has time to do the devtools/db-scripts changes (again, should be reasonably small) then go for it, otherwise I can probably do this too. ... And the server admins will need to deal with figuring out account creation, access permissions, etc...
I will try to flesh this out this weekend. Does anyone have an expected time for this change?
I don't expect to have anything in working order until next week sometime, even though the db-scripts and devtools changes are minor.
Aaron Griffin wrote:
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Allan McRae allan@archlinux.org wrote:
I can handle the ABS changes (which will be very minor). If someone else has time to do the devtools/db-scripts changes (again, should be reasonably small) then go for it, otherwise I can probably do this too. ... And the server admins will need to deal with figuring out account creation, access permissions, etc...
I will try to flesh this out this weekend. Does anyone have an expected time for this change?
I don't expect to have anything in working order until next week sometime, even though the db-scripts and devtools changes are minor.
I guess the bottleneck in doing this will be getting the web backends in order. But given the decision about whether the AUR will still keep showing [community] packages is not fully resolved, I'd say there is no real rush on getting everything working.
Allan
aur-general@lists.archlinux.org