[aur-general] [RFC] Draft of the AUR 4.0.0 migration notification

[Gordian Edenhofer]

On Sat, 2015-05-23 at 16:56 -0700, Tai-Lin Chu wrote:
> aur4 at this moment is still inconvenient to use because makepkg is
> designed for the old aur. Should we update makepkg first?
> 
> I also hope that the coexist period of new and old aur is short, or
> there is a way to propagate updates to new aur to old aur so that
> packagers don't have to update twice.
> 
> On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Johannes Löthberg
> <johannes at kyriasis.com> wrote:
> > On 23/05, Doug Newgard wrote:
> > > 
> > > You may agree, but that doesn't make it right, just lazy.
> > 
> > 
> > How is it lazy to not want to have tens or hundreds of git repos 
> > with just a
> > single or two files in them around when there's no reason for it?
> > 
> > --
> > Sincerely,
> >  Johannes Löthberg
> >  PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5
> >  https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/

I agree to the already mentioned criticism, that there is to few
documentation. An additional option for makepkg would be great and will
definitely make the migration process a whole lot easier.

However I disagree that it is useless to make a custom git repo for
each and every package. Though it seems like an odd choice for the
maintainer, it is way better when thinking about the server-side
administration. Managing co-maintainers, disowning and adopting
packages is much easier if they are isolated in their own
repo.
The only logical choice for me was to split my repo, which once
contained all my packages into several small ones and then worked with
them through git-submodules.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/attachments/20150524/f91be3a6/attachment.asc>