[aur-general] scm naming conventions
garoth at gmail.com
Mon Jun 1 21:28:29 EDT 2009
I think: good idea, but not worth the bother to switch.
- 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
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