[aur-requests] [PRQ#7343] Orphan Request for mattermost-push-proxy
wget [1] filed a orphan request for mattermost-push-proxy [2]: I asked das_j to become the maintainer and he to become a co- maintainer. But he made things in reverse order. I contacted him back in order for him to disown the package, so that I can readopt it immediately and put him as co maintainer, but he isn't responding any more (seems like unavailable). Could we fix that? [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/wget/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/mattermost-push-proxy/
Yes. I didn't take the mail seriously and I still don't. I'm sorry but I don't see any reason for disowning. On 23 Jan 2017, 18:01, at 18:01, notify@aur.archlinux.org wrote:
wget [1] filed a orphan request for mattermost-push-proxy [2]:
I asked das_j to become the maintainer and he to become a co- maintainer.
But he made things in reverse order. I contacted him back in order for him to disown the package, so that I can readopt it immediately and put him as co maintainer, but he isn't responding any more (seems like unavailable).
Could we fix that?
[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/wget/ [2] https://aur.archlinux.org/pkgbase/mattermost-push-proxy/
Dear Janne, On 01/24/2017 10:09 AM, Janne Heß wrote:
Yes. I didn't take the mail seriously and I still don't. I'm sorry but I don't see any reason for disowning.
Since I have been really active in the Mattermost community and since
I'm an Arch Linux contributor, the Mattermost team asked me if they
could have only one person managing the Mattermost related packages on
the AUR, for ease of communication, practical usage, etc. Also, I'm in
the process to migrate the official Mattermost documentation related to
Arch Linux, back, where it should be, i.e. in the Arch Linux wiki. [1]
I answered I could maintain the whole Mattermost packages stack, but
this will require me to contact each maintainer individually.
This is why I contacted you and, as agreed, you put me as a co
maintainer. The only issue I have with being a co-maintainer is that I
do not have full rights to the package (inability to rename, etc.) and
due to a bug in AUR web, we do not have an easy access to packages we
co-maintain (until a patch is proposed in AUR, we need to check for the
package name manually).
This is why I asked you that I become the official maintainer. The only
way to do this is to disown the package, I readopt it and I put you as a
co-maintainer immediately.
But since it seems you are not willing to do so, I'll leave the
situation as it. Any way, as a co-maintainer, I still have commits rights.
Regards,
[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Talk:Mattermost
--
William Gathoye
On 01/24/17 at 03:06pm, William Gathoye wrote:
This is why I asked you that I become the official maintainer. The only way to do this is to disown the package, I readopt it and I put you as a co-maintainer immediately.
And then he suffers from the same issues you have currently have as co-maintainer? Please don't drive a maintainer out, just because you have contact with upstream. Your tone is quiet hostile :( -- Jelle van der Waa
On 01/24/2017 03:51 PM, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
And then he suffers from the same issues you have currently have as co-maintainer?
Please don't drive a maintainer out, just because you have contact with upstream. Your tone is quiet hostile :(
Sorry, this wasn't meant to be hostile at all. I apologize if it sounds
like it was.
Then, I'll have to work sooner than expected on the co-maintainer issue
in AUR web. Also, instead of having only one co-maintainer, maybe
reorganizing how the principle of maintainers is working for one package
would be better (i.e. allow package to have multiple maintainers with
same rights).
Maybe continuing this discussion to aur-web would be better. I'm
subscribed to that mailing list as well. Just put me in cc in order to
bypass by mail filtering rules. Thanks :)
Regards,
--
William Gathoye
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 at 18:25:23, William Gathoye wrote:
Then, I'll have to work sooner than expected on the co-maintainer issue in AUR web. Also, instead of having only one co-maintainer, maybe reorganizing how the principle of maintainers is working for one package would be better (i.e. allow package to have multiple maintainers with same rights).
That bug is already fixed in master, see [1]. And I don't think allowing multiple maintainers per package base is better than the current system. Co-maintainers can already do pretty much everything except for adding or removing other co-maintainers (renaming the package requires filing a merge request -- it does not matter whether you are a maintainer or a co-maintainer). Regards, Lukas [1] https://git.archlinux.org/aurweb.git/commit/?id=1ed8471
Le 24/01/2017 à 21:42, Lukas Fleischer a écrit :
On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 at 18:25:23, William Gathoye wrote:
Then, I'll have to work sooner than expected on the co-maintainer issue in AUR web. Also, instead of having only one co-maintainer, maybe reorganizing how the principle of maintainers is working for one package would be better (i.e. allow package to have multiple maintainers with same rights).
That bug is already fixed in master, see [1]. And I don't think allowing multiple maintainers per package base is better than the current system. Co-maintainers can already do pretty much everything except for adding or removing other co-maintainers (renaming the package requires filing a merge request -- it does not matter whether you are a maintainer or a co-maintainer).
Regards, Lukas
Lukas, I think the bug referenced by William is this one: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/45591 Which AFAIK isn’t solved. Though not being an huge one, provided you’re suppose to have local git clone of the packages you co-maintain. ;) Regards, Bruno
Request #7343 has been rejected by ArchangeGabriel [1]. [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/ArchangeGabriel/
participants (6)
-
Bruno Pagani
-
Janne Heß
-
Jelle van der Waa
-
Lukas Fleischer
-
notify＠aur.archlinux.org
-
William Gathoye