[aur-general] scm naming conventions

Andrei Thorp garoth at gmail.com
Mon Jun 1 21:28:29 EDT 2009

I think: good idea, but not worth the bother to switch.

Good Idea:
 - Yeah, it's a bit more clear, and very unlikely that a single
project would use two different ones
 - Nice that packages don't need renaming on upstream changes

Not Worth It:
 - *lots* of packages renamed
 - Future confusion when people who've seen a -git once upload a -git
without knowing the -scm policy
   - Requires further monitoring/adminship
 - -git/-svn/-bzr or whatever actually gives you more information than
-scm. More information is better?
 - Lots of effort to do my "If Implemented" section too

If Implemented (I'm not recommending this option):
 - Conversion would be hassle, perhaps best done by making a frontpage
notice, and having a script (supervised script?) do the heavy lifting
on the server side
 - Avoid most future problems by having AUR Web refuse things that
look like they're a -git / -svn or whatever, and ask the user to make
it -scm

Anyway, so I think it can be done right, but isn't a sufficient enough
gain to really warrant the effort.

More information about the aur-general mailing list