[aur-general] TU application - Kyle Keen
ibiru at archlinux.org
Tue Dec 7 17:36:13 CET 2010
On 12/07/2010 06:19 PM, Daenyth Blank wrote:
>>> Right now I host the bugbot in #archlinux-bugs and I've got a few AUR
>>> packages(1). Of them, ScrotWM and Slurm probably deserve to be in
>>> [community]. I've written several well-liked metatools for Arch
>>> including Pacgraph, Pacmatic, and Aurphan. Aurphan is the main reason
>>> for trying to apply.
>>> Pierre requested a feature to cross check official packages as well as
>>> the AUR(2). I was a little shocked to find 35 official orphans on my
>>> system. Clearly, we are understaffed. Arch has been nothing short of
>>> amazing and I want to do what I can to help keep it going. Other
>>> goals include improving the maintenance tools and porting Arch to old
>>> or cheap architectures. I also mirrored the AUR for a while and have
>>> a nearly complete copy of the old comments from before the Great Table
>>> Drop that should be re-inserted.
>>> Thanks for your consideration,
>>> 1) http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=m&K=keenerd&SO=d&SB=v
>>> 2) https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=108693
>> The discussion period is nearly over but I have something that I want to bring
>> up after reading though the nearly 100 new messages on aur-general.
>> keenerd wrote:
>>> If no one can think of a better way to deal with the nonconforming
>>> packages, I'll write a bot to post insulting comments. Personally, I
>>> really like this solution. The AUR has always had a wild west
>>> frontier / insane asylum feel to it. The less regulation, the better
>>> it works. But a few well placed suggestions could help make the two
>>> thousand maintainers do a better job.
>> Heiko Baums wrote:
>>> Am Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:53:08 -0500
>>> schrieb keenerd<keenerd at gmail.com>:
>>>>> find /var/abs -name *.png | wc -l == 60
>>>> Of +4800 packages, that is 1.2%. The AUR is more than twice that
>>>> rate. But while we are running the numbers to determine best
>>> This would be about 480000+ e-mails to users if your bot continues
>>> writing those AUR comments. That's too many.
>>> As I said before, please, don't do this. You can, of course, let such a
>>> bot help you finding "bad" packages. But you have to verify its results
>>> personally, before you write such AUR comments.
>>> Such automations are usually pretty unreliable except they are written
>>> very thoughtfully and are tested a lot.
>>> And regarding the 1.2%... Don't trust any statistics you did not even
>> I'm a bit bothered by the way that you've handled this. You proceeded to write
>> and launch the bot based on your personal interpretation of the rules without
>> waiting for any definitive conclusion from the ongoing discussion about them.
>> Comments aren't that big a deal, even if there will be many confused
>> maintainers, but with TU status on the AUR you could do much more with
>> disastrous consequences.
>> Considering this and the still-ongoing discussion about the AUR guidelines, do
>> you agree that it would be prudent to be more patient in the future and wait
>> until we've come to a conclusion before going ahead with something like this
> Wow he actually launched that bot? I thought it was a joke. It seemed
> so stupid that I didn't think anyone would take it seriously. That
> definitely opens up some other perspectives on the application...
dude, he said it will write a bot for aur. RIGHT NOW he has a bot for
bugtracker and it doesn't send any emails, just write some text in the
channel. nothing more, nothing less
More information about the aur-general