[aur-requests] [PRQ#3743] cadence-git

Levente Polyak anthraxx at archlinux.org
Wed Jul 22 15:09:25 UTC 2015

On 07/22/2015 04:08 PM, Maxime Gauduin wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Llewelyn Trahaearn <
> woefulderelict at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thank you for taking the time to investigate this request. There is no
>> evidence to support the conclusion that one did not attempt to contact the
>> current maintainer via the e-mail address provided in their profile seeking
>> to correct the trivial issues with this package.
>> On 22 Jul 2015 5:41 am, <notify at aur.archlinux.org> wrote:
>>> Request #3743 has been rejected by anthraxx [1]:
>>> you first created an orphan request without speaking to the current
>>> maintainer about your improvements. Two days after the request you
>>> left a comment on the package....
>>> Try working together with the current maintainer and don't try to take
>>> over packages just because of bike-shedding
>>> [1] https://aur4.archlinux.org/account/anthraxx/
> There is no evidence that one did either, which is why the comment section
> exists. One would be entitled to think that filing a request before leaving
> a comment is a bit unorthodox.
> Note that your request is valid, the pkgver should be changed, it's just
> that the order of things may betray a hidden agenda.
> Cheers,
> --
> Maxime

Yep, exactly like Maxime explained.
The only evidence of a contact to a maintainer, that we are able to
verify, is a comment in the package-comments section. If we don't use
that to check if the maintainer actually did react to something or not,
then we would be forced to blindly believe what a request author is
claiming (which can result in abuse and takeover of packages without the
possibility for the current maintainer to react to the improvements).

Just to make it clear that I have the same opinion like Maxime: The
reason of the request is valid (just the waiting period is not). If the
maintainer did not react after a period of two weeks since your comment,
just re-file this request and it will be granted.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/attachments/20150722/bef25277/attachment-0001.asc>

More information about the aur-requests mailing list