[aur-general] AUR 3.3.0 released

Dave Reisner d at falconindy.com
Wed Jul 9 09:01:24 EDT 2014

On Jul 9, 2014 8:59 AM, "Evert Vorster" <evorster at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't see the relevance to the point this seemed to be a response to.
> > That package may be hard/impossible to maintain, true - but separate
> > flags for 'out of date', 'broken', 'wont compile' wouldn't aid that
> > situation any.  In fact they might make it worse.
> Agreed
> > If one flag just signifies that something is wrong that requires the
> > maintainer's attention, it should be easier for users and for
> > maintainers.
> Yes, don't get hung up on a name. That button could just as easily
> have said: "Needs attention" and then it would cover all the bases.

Naming is important. Here's an idea: lets call them "comments". They can be
freeform text so that you can explain why the package needs attention,
rather than just pressing some weirdly labeled button and hoping the
maintainer figures it out.

> --
> Evert Vorster
> Chief Observer
> WG Cook

More information about the aur-general mailing list