[aur-general] About orphaning all packages of inactive users
anatol.pomozov at gmail.com
Fri Jul 19 14:40:02 EDT 2013
On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:16 AM, Lukas Jirkovsky <l.jirkovsky at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 July 2013 15:39, Anatol Pomozov <anatol.pomozov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> In this case the maintainer should unmark the package and clearly
>> explain in comments why the package cannot be upgraded to the new
>> version. Ideally maintainer should also work with upstream on
>> resolving the issues. But silently leave the package in "out-of-date"
>> state forever is not the best solution neither.
> The problem is that the users don't read. It's happening all the time.
> I had a package once or twice that couldn't be updated but even though
> I stated it in the comments people were still marking it out of date.
> BTW, leaving the package as out of date is a good reminder that the
> maintainer should check if the problem was fixed every now and then.
> On 19 July 2013 15:45, Doug Newgard <scimmia22 at outlook.com> wrote:
>> Do you consider clicking a link twice (once to unflag, again to reflag) every 6 months or so overly burdensome?
> It's simple to forget about that
And that is what email notifications for.
> and it's nonsense to do it just to
> keep your package. I don't think it's any better than the current
> approach with emailing the maintainer first.
> As I mentioned earlier, I don't have anything against mass orphaning
> if the maintainer is clearly inactive
I don't think that *manual* mass orphaning is a good idea. There
should be an automatic way to do this.
But if you think that "package was not fixed for 6 months" is a bad
indicator of user inactivity what would be a good indicator then?
> and his package has problems,
> but this automatic approach doesn't take that into account.
More information about the aur-general