[aur-general] Idea for AUR improvement
Hugo Osvaldo Barrera
hugo at osvaldobarrera.com.ar
Sat Jun 2 11:21:14 EDT 2012
On 2012-06-02 11:55, Xyne wrote:
> Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
>> I think a list of "packages I've contributed to" (similar to "my
>> packages", but also includes packages you've orphaned) in AUR would
>> solve this, and be helpful for other stuff.
>> If a user leaves Arch for some reason, and comes back, IF he's
>> intereseted in re-adopted his orphaned packages, he'll just see that
>> list, and adopt them.
>> Currently, it's pretty hard to know what packages you've contributed to
>> in the past, and it is something nice to have.
> That poses two problems already raised in this thread:
> 1) privacy issues: not everyone will want to be permanently associated with
That's why I said "package *I*'ve contributed to"; each user can only
see him own contributions.
> 2) backend complexity: each package would have to store a list of contributors
> in the database
It's not really that complex. You'd need a new table
("former-maintainer"?) for mapping users<->packages.
> 1 would not actually be a list of contributors, only a list of current and
> former maintainers, as those who contribute via comments will not be tracked in
> this way. It thus defeats the goal of giving credit, but it would still work to
> track previous maintainers.
Yes, the list would actually be "packages I've maintained".
> I lean towards the privacy argument on this and would prefer that we don't
> track every maintainer, but I don't see it as a big deal.
> I also think that tracking the last maintainer would be much more useful than
> the submitter. Currently someone could easily adopt orphaned packakges, insert
> malicious code and then orphan them again. A last-maintainer field would enable
> use to determine who did that and deal with it.
Yes, that's exactly the point. I've maintained packages in the past,
and I'm curious as to what happened to them. Since I actually adopted
them (not submited), I've no way of easily listing them.
> Now, switching submitter for last maintainer might be easy enough to do on
> the backend.
Yes, it makes much more sense; the last maintainer is way more relevant
than the submitter. Complete rewrites are not uncommon, and the
submiter is irrelevant in those cases.
Hugo Osvaldo Barrera
More information about the aur-general