[aur-general] Mandatory comment along with OOD-flag

rafael ff1 rafael.f.f1 at gmail.com
Tue Sep 13 07:58:34 EDT 2011

2011/9/13 nem <nem at ikitten.co.uk>:
> good day!
> recently i experienced some wild out-of-date flagging without any
> comments or even backupped reasons for codelite [1] from different
> users (even multiple times by the same) over the past two weeks.
> someone has been kind enough to help me unflagging these.
> however this is not only very annoying without any reasons (comments or
> email of the flaggers) whatsoever but also kind of lighted some concern
> about the carelessness of how people are flagging. they don't seem to
> even read the latest comments of the package or try to get a grasp of
> their reasoning ([1] is the stable version. they probably want the svn
> version which is also available).
> i thought about that and putting a fulltext description in the pkg-desc
> field is probably not what it's meant to be. so what came to my mind
> was a mandatory comment along with flagging to get an idea, why the
> person thinks it's out of date.
> that would make them think before flagging and also make them come back
> and read the response and not flag it out-of-date again.
> anyone else having similar issues? or am i overreacting here?
> regards,
> nem
> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=18809

IMO, shouldn't be mandatory. If you have a stable version package and
user flags it because there is a new devel version or the PKGBUILD has
a bug, then the problem is a misunderstanding of the OOD feature usage
by the user. In this case, leave a educational comment.

More information about the aur-general mailing list