Mistakes are made. As was already done, deleted packages can be restored via the git interface. I understand your difference, I was just explaining why one may have made that deletion request.
Of course, the user who made the request and the TU who accepted it become aware that this was a mistake, and they'll remember it for the future.
The platform is not automatically moderated at all. It is generally easier for a maintainer to reach out for a request being problematic than trying to reach out to every maintainer who owns packages that requests are made for; which would absolutely slow down these actions behind a wall of logistics.
The last point may be nice for an org who wishes that their packages are never touched, but, this is a user-run platform, and with that comes the fact that TUs need to sometimes make decisions without input from owners of the packages.
It is what it is, and that's most likely how it happened. It's not the end of the world, as you know, since your package was already reinstated back to what it was before the deletion occurred.
Please consider this a minor inconvenience. It's not something that dramatically changes anything about the topic in question, and it does not affect your project in a very bad way overall -- it was a mishap, and mishaps happen.
Mistakes are OK. What isn't okay is then returning and arguing that the mistake wasn't a mistake -- that is not what's happening.
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 08:15:52PM -0600, Hunter Wittenborn via aur-general wrote:
It's the same reason packages like 'google-chrome-beta'  and 'google-chrome-dev'  exist, it's just so users can use more cutting-edge releases if they so choose. I just use '-beta' and '-alpha' as my version of the '-beta' and '-dev' versions, they're all part of my actual program's Git repository, they're just named such to describe the nature of the release.
I could see the possible confusion with it being thought that these were prerelease-like versions that are just temporary codenames that'll be obsoleted by new ones in the future, but again, this could easily have been seen by looking at the PKGBUILDs, and equally as important at the upstream repository .
Again, I'm not trying to create a bunch of drama, I'm just really wanting to know how this deletion could have even been submitted if everything was properly checked, as this becomes quite an issue when I'm wanting these packages to be reliably available to end users.
---- On Thu, 16 Dec 2021 18:52:50 -0600 Kevin Morris via aur-general email@example.com wrote ----
I can't speak for grawlinson, but I did want to bring up a point that, off the top of my head, might be a reason for deletion requests.
In software, `alpha` is used for a release before a `beta` or a straight up release. `beta` is used in the same way, but is more tightly coupled directly behind an official release.
Most of the time, projects do the following:
- Release alpha, get testing done.
- Release beta, obsolete alpha, get testing done.
- Release for real, obsolete alpha/beta which was previously released.
So, normally, alpha and beta packages are just earlier versions of their non-alpha or non-beta counterparts. What is the exact point of your `-alpha` and `-beta` packages if `makedeb` exists and can be used?
-- Kevin Morris Software Developer
- kevr @ Libera