On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 07:58:47AM -0500, brent s. wrote:

IGNORING the entire reason for creating the package - to merge the fixed version to the existing package, the request for which was done minutes after the package was created.

What the hell?

Yes, creating new packages to merge into unmaintained packages is not how you solve the problem. Submit an orphan request, wait for it to be accepted, adopt the package and submit a fixed PKGBUILD. -- Morten Linderud PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16

On 11/20/2017 09:18 AM, Doug Newgard wrote:

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:58:47 -0500 "brent s." wrote:

...

TU Alad has deleted this package:

""" Request #9816 has been rejected by Alad [1]:

File an orphan request, duplicate packages with meaningless "fixed" suffixes are not acceptable.

[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Alad/ """

IGNORING the entire reason for creating the package - to merge the fixed version to the existing package, the request for which was done minutes after the package was created.

What the hell?

Merge does not do what you think it does. This is not github. Read the AUR wiki page.

"Merge requests are for when one package is replacing another one. Users still have to resubmit a package under a new name and may request merging of the old version's comments and votes. This has nothing to do with 'git merge' and is not similar to github's merge requests."

"Users still have to resubmit a package under a new name"

"resubmit...new name"

i never made the claim this was github, and i find it silly that you're inferring i ever had that assumption. -- brent saner https://square-r00t.net/ GPG info: https://square-r00t.net/gpg-info

On 11/20/2017 09:56 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote:

On 11/20/2017 09:41 AM, brent s. wrote:

...

"Merge requests are for when one package is replacing another one. Users still have to resubmit a package under a new name and may request merging of the old version's comments and votes. This has nothing to do with 'git merge' and is not similar to github's merge requests."

And you're missing the part where "why on earth would one package ever be replacing another one".

To which there is a pretty simple answer: you generally don't, and you certainly don't try to engineer such a situation for the fun of it by perverting the meaning of a pkgname.

This is meant for situations when for example upstream has renamed the software, and a new package with a new pkgname must be uploaded, but the comments and votes from the old name are still relevant.

The wiki page did an excellent job IMHO in distinguishing between "merging the old version" which is okay, and "creating a new package to merge *into* the old one".

Since merging only merges votes and comments, I cannot fathom in any way, shape, or form why you thought there was any functional utility in creating a new pkgbase, then deleting it and merging nonexistent votes and comments into the original pkgbase.

well, i beg your pardon if i made the assumption that TU and the entire AUR structure was smart enough to understand a merge request of a differently-owned package as an orphan request for a clearly fixed package. i humbly beseech myself towards your graces and fall upon my sword for expecting common sense of process. i think this thread has run its course. -- brent saner https://square-r00t.net/ GPG info: https://square-r00t.net/gpg-info

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:06:13AM -0500, brent s. wrote:

well, i beg your pardon if i made the assumption that TU and the entire AUR structure was smart enough to understand a merge request of a differently-owned package as an orphan request for a clearly fixed package.

Yes, we understand that. That is why it was rejected. We have asked you to submit an orphan request instead, and trying to clear up on the confusion. But your attituide is not helping. -- Morten Linderud PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16

On 20 November 2017 at 17:40, Jeremy Audet via aur-general < aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:

...

well, i beg your pardon if i made the assumption that TU and the entire AUR structure was smart enough to understand a merge request of a differently-owned package as an orphan request for a clearly fixed

package.

...

i humbly beseech myself towards your graces and fall upon my sword for expecting common sense of process.

At my workplace, someone displaying this kind of attitude will be fired. At my home, someone displaying this kind of attitude will be kicked out, Thanksgiving or no.

This person thinks other people live with an AUR browser tab open and their finger on F5. Having missed the first error report I left it unattended, but as soon as I saw the second one today I fixed it. Still, I got within hours apart notices of impatient comments, merge and orphan requests. Dude, let us breathe. Orphaned it, have fun. Just stop nagging, please. -- X https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?SeB=m&K=nous