[aur-dev] [PATCH 1/4] remove submitter from package data

[Lukas Fleischer]

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:00:50PM -0700, elij wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Dan McGee <dpmcgee at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:48 PM, elij <elij.mx at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 7:11 AM, Lukas Fleischer
> >> <archlinux at cryptocrack.de> wrote:
> >>> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 09:01:27PM -0700, elij wrote:
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  web/html/pkgsubmit.php       |    3 +--
> >>>>  web/lib/pkgfuncs.inc         |   10 +---------
> >>>>  web/template/pkg_details.php |   11 -----------
> >>>>  3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The submitter field proved to be useful in some cases where a package
> >>> was moved from the official repos to the AUR and either turned out to be
> >>> incomplete or wasn't properly removed from the official repos.
> >>
> >> I guess I don't see what benefit the submitter field would have in
> >> such an instance.
> >> If someone moved it from the official repos to the aur, would they not
> >> be the submitter and also the maintainer?
> > Initially, yes. And then we all usually orphan the junk because we
> > don't want it, we just put it there for postarity, so you've
> > immediately lost information.
> >
> > I think it has a lot less usefulness on the web page itself (at least
> > for the general public), so I wouldn't be against culling it there,
> > but as far as a point of reference when trying to look at the
> > packages, it makes since to keep around. It can be far different than
> > what the maintainer field tells you.
> 
> Hmm. So keeping it but maybe only showing it to TU or Developer class
> users may be more appropriate.

Agreed.

> Alternatively, it almost sounds like maintainer and submitter could be
> merged into an 'owner' value, and track owner history somehow (record
> each change of ownership in a join table). That might add the ability
> to track users that upload lots of packages, then disown them too. And
> track packages with high owner turnover (may tell whether a package is
> painful or burdensome to maintain).

Hm, sounds cool, but I'm not sure if it's worth implementing. I don't
see any real benefit from the feature itself or from the statistics that
could be created using this yet.

> 
> If such a thing were implemented though, I think it should be
> displayed only to TU or Developer class users. I can't see general
> users finding much use for it, but I could be wrong.