Re: [aur-requests] [PRQ#11119] Orphan Request for pcs-git
Hello list, The claim made in the message is unsubstantiated, as can easily be seen on the package's page. I think the submitter is a package hoarder, because he has 383(!) packages on the AUR, most probably acquired through such requests. This has happened before and leads to a centralization of the AUR. In this particular case, the last request for a PKGBUILD update was only made this morning at around 8 AM. The requester submitted the request today at 8 PM. His claim that there were many comments with working PKGBUILDs is irrelevant, because the only new one is from this morning around 8 AM. The following claim that there were no reaction sice 2016 is irrelevant as well, because the last comment before that was only towards the end of march. I consider the submission of the request after only 12 hours to be an attempt at a package takeover, because the requester attempted to create the illusion of an inactive maintainer. I kindly ask to take care about accepting such requests and to take apropriate action against such attempts. Kind regards Noel Kuntze -- GPG Key ID: 0x63EC6658 Fingerprint: 23CA BB60 2146 05E7 7278 6592 3839 298F 63EC 6658
On 04/12/2018 04:41 PM, Noel Kuntze wrote:> In this particular case, the last request for a PKGBUILD update was
only made this morning at around 8 AM. The requester submitted the request today at 8 PM. His claim that there were many comments with working PKGBUILDs is irrelevant, because the only new one is from this morning around 8 AM. The following claim that there were no reaction sice 2016 is irrelevant as well, because the last comment before that was only towards the end of march. I consider the submission of the request after only 12 hours to be an attempt at a package takeover, because the requester attempted to create the illusion of an inactive maintainer. I kindly ask to take care about accepting such requests and to take apropriate action against such attempts.
Kind regards
Noel Kuntze
Wow, just wow.
many comments with working PKGBUILDs
Exactly two, both within the last month... while it is not exactly joyous to have a maintainer not fix something in nearly a month, it is also hardly unexpected, people do have lives which sometimes clash with their AUR responsibilities. Do note, however, that we usually give a grace period of two weeks for any requests. So this was never going to be accepted. :) -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
Hello Eli, On 12.04.2018 23:13, Eli Schwartz via aur-requests wrote:
On 04/12/2018 04:41 PM, Noel Kuntze wrote:> In this particular case, the last request for a PKGBUILD update was
only made this morning at around 8 AM. The requester submitted the request today at 8 PM. His claim that there were many comments with working PKGBUILDs is irrelevant, because the only new one is from this morning around 8 AM. The following claim that there were no reaction sice 2016 is irrelevant as well, because the last comment before that was only towards the end of march. I consider the submission of the request after only 12 hours to be an attempt at a package takeover, because the requester attempted to create the illusion of an inactive maintainer. I kindly ask to take care about accepting such requests and to take apropriate action against such attempts.
Kind regards
Noel Kuntze Wow, just wow.
many comments with working PKGBUILDs Exactly two, both within the last month... while it is not exactly joyous to have a maintainer not fix something in nearly a month, it is also hardly unexpected, people do have lives which sometimes clash with their AUR responsibilities.
Do note, however, that we usually give a grace period of two weeks for any requests. So this was never going to be accepted. :)
The last package of mine that a request was made against (pacemaker-stable) was merged (int pacemaker) rather quickly through an aur request, so I'm pretty sensitive about such things. Whenever I do requests myself, I give the maintainers ususally a month before I send it and also send them mail to their registered email address in case they don't see the mail from the AUR. The AUR only sends one mail per request and, as you wrote yourself, people have a busy life. Relatively unimportant tasks like updating PKGBUILDs are forgotten rather quickly. Thank you for rejecting the request. Kind regards Noel -- Noel Kuntze IT security consultant GPG Key ID: 0x0739AD6C Fingerprint: 3524 93BE B5F7 8E63 1372 AF2D F54E E40B 0739 AD6C
On 04/12/2018 05:33 PM, Noel Kuntze wrote:
The last package of mine that a request was made against (pacemaker-stable) was merged (int pacemaker) rather quickly through an aur request, so I'm pretty sensitive about such things. Whenever I do requests myself, I give the maintainers ususally a month before I send it and also send them mail to their registered email address in case they don't see the mail from the AUR.
A grace period is only given when what the maintainer thinks/does matters, so I probably should have specified I was referring to orphan requests. (Internally, the backend actually allows any request to be rejected immediately, but it doesn't allow directly accepting orphan requests until 14 days. To accept those early, we need to close it, then manually orphan the package.) ... Merge or deletion requests usually have a reason beyond "maintainer inactive, I can do better" ;) so depending on the request we may decide we know all the facts already, or we may try to consult the maintainer first. Packages that violate the naming guidelines or are duplicates of another package will generally be deleted pretty fast, but those are special circumstances... -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
Noel Kuntze via aur-requests
Hello Eli,
On 12.04.2018 23:13, Eli Schwartz via aur-requests wrote:
On 04/12/2018 04:41 PM, Noel Kuntze wrote:> In this particular case, the last request for a PKGBUILD update was
only made this morning at around 8 AM. The requester submitted the request today at 8 PM. His claim that there were many comments with working PKGBUILDs is irrelevant, because the only new one is from this morning around 8 AM. The following claim that there were no reaction sice 2016 is irrelevant as well, because the last comment before that was only towards the end of march. I consider the submission of the request after only 12 hours to be an attempt at a package takeover, because the requester attempted to create the illusion of an inactive maintainer. I kindly ask to take care about accepting such requests and to take apropriate action against such attempts.
Kind regards
Noel Kuntze Wow, just wow.
many comments with working PKGBUILDs Exactly two, both within the last month... while it is not exactly joyous to have a maintainer not fix something in nearly a month, it is also hardly unexpected, people do have lives which sometimes clash with their AUR responsibilities.
Do note, however, that we usually give a grace period of two weeks for any requests. So this was never going to be accepted. :)
The last package of mine that a request was made against (pacemaker-stable) was merged (int pacemaker) rather quickly through an aur request, so I'm pretty sensitive about such things. Whenever I do requests myself, I give the maintainers ususally a month before I send it and also send them mail to their registered email address in case they don't see the mail from the AUR.
The AUR only sends one mail per request and, as you wrote yourself, people have a busy life. Relatively unimportant tasks like updating PKGBUILDs are forgotten rather quickly.
Thank you for rejecting the request.
Kind regards
Noel
-- Noel Kuntze IT security consultant
GPG Key ID: 0x0739AD6C Fingerprint: 3524 93BE B5F7 8E63 1372 AF2D F54E E40B 0739 AD6C
Hello, I apologize. This request was definitely a mistake I made, and the ejection was the correct reaction. I only considered the AUR comments and should have digged deeper. I am not interested in taking over the package. Sorry again and best regards Stefan Husmann
participants (4)
-
Eli Schwartz
-
Noel Kuntze
-
Noel Kuntze
-
Stefan Husmann