[aur-general] Proposed rules for packages entering [community]

[Brandon Martin]

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 15:58:03 -0600, "Aaron Griffin"
<aaronmgriffin at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:40 PM, w9ya <w9ya at qrparci.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Kristoffer Fossgård <kfs1 at online.no>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Why is package popularity judged by votes anyway? I never vote. The
>>> > reason i never vote is because i don't understand why package
>>> > popularity can't simply be judged by download count. I know there's
>>> > been some discussion of this topic earlier but as far as i can recall
>>> > there were no convincing arguments against it. even if some moron
>>> > decides to download his package more times to increase the chance of
>>> > adoption(where would the motivation to do this be anyway? if he
> simply
>>> > want's to get it in the pacman system for easier maintenance a simple
>>> > guide to make your own repository and add it to pacman would remove
>>> > this incurrence in 99% of cases) the TU's and Devs could still choose
>>> > to not include the package in the repos. This could also largely be
>>> > avoided by only counting i guess certain ip ranges(i'm not an expert
> on
>>> > these things, but i DO know that counting downloads with some level
> of
>>> > security is a common occurence on the net)
>>>
>>> We have mirrors. Almost 100 of them. Feel free to contact them all,
>>> have them write code to count downloads which then sends the stats to
>>> us, and then we can implement this.
>>>
>>> What you suggest is absolutely not feasible at all.
>>
>> Quite frankly Aaron, this attitude is not helpful to your case at all.
> And
>> it leads to worse as we have seen between you and me as of late. No one
>> likes to be rebutted in such a manner.
>>
>> Yes, it is NOT feasible, BUT you can **choose** to say this nicely or
>> coarsely.
> 
> Kristoffer, I apologize if this sounded harsh, as Mr Finch seemed to
> interpret it. I did not mean it as such - I meant to say that you were
> overlooking the fact that we do not have full control over our mirrors
> and can only track downloads from one out of *many* servers.
> 

Not that I want to jump right in the middle, but I agree with Aaron. I
didn't take his prev email as harsh and if you want to go down that road
Bob your could be interpeted wrongly also.

> P.S... I am *still* waiting for answers to my questions from yesterday.
But please take as much time as you need to answer them.

That could be interpreted as being a smart ass.

I really am not calling you a smart ass Bob. I have no problems with you I
just want to point out that I think that people on both sides are getting a
little sensetive with this. I see good points from both sides of the fence.

Just an outside observation.

Brandon
--
Brandon Martin