[aur-general] Package voting alternatives
hollunder at lavabit.com
Mon Dec 28 07:16:56 EST 2009
Excerpts from Sebastian Nowicki's message of Mon Dec 28 10:54:14 +0100 2009:
> On 28/12/2009, at 5:40 PM, Ray Rashif wrote:
> > 2009/12/28 Philipp Überbacher <hollunder at lavabit.com>:
> >> For package A there might be two releases per year, for package B 15.
> >> For package C there might be only one update per upstream release,
> >> for
> >> package D there might be 5.
> > The math will take care of that :)
> In all seriousness, it would to an extent. Votes could be made more
> significant than downloads, and downloads could be time-scaled more
> severely than votes, etc. The downloads of a frequently updated
> package as opposed to an infrequently updated package can be
> normalized. It is a very good point though. The question is, would
> this system be more accurate than plain votes, and would it be worth
> implementing it?
> There will never ever be a flawless algorithm, we just need one that's
> the most suitable. Perhaps I'm over-complicating things and a voting
> system is enough. After all TUs make the final decision about which
> packages get into community.
Personally I think you're overcomplicating things. To me it seems the
votes don't matter anyway. There are guidelines for the number of needed
votes afaik but from my limited experience packages only get into
community when a TU is interested in them, in which case the votecount
doesn't matter at all.
More information about the aur-general