[aur-requests] [PRQ#12005] Orphan Request for hdf5_18

[Eli Schwartz]

On 07/30/2018 09:35 PM, Jean Lucas via aur-requests wrote:
> The unflagging was not done out of spite. I overlooked the fact that the
> previous URL was out-of-date. Will try to be more competent next time.
Okay. So. How about saying that next time?

"My apologies for unflagging it before, I looked in the download
directory and on the homepage and didn't see a new release. I didn't
realize they'd switched locations. Next time, if an update needs more
than a simple pkgver bump, could you please link the new location to aid
the maintainer in verifying and applying the update."

Or even:

"You keep flagging this out of date, but I cannot find any such update
on the upstream url. *Where* exactly is this update of yours supposed to
be?"

But instead, you challenged the reporter by trying to apply some sort of
fundamental rule to the AUR, that people who click the "Flag package
out-of-date" button must be doing it horribly wrong if they don't fill
out a complex report and back up their assertion with links.

...

People are human, they make mistakes and overlook things. That's
understandable. I'm a bit more astonished by a response that makes me
think you consider a release announcement link to be obligatory and
won't act without one, and doesn't carry any implication at all that you
actually looked to see if there was an update but didn't see one.

When I read that message, it made me think "oh, the maintainer just
looked at the flag message, didn't see a link which could be checked,
and said: 'whatever, too much bother' then unflagged it".

From the sound of it, @eleftg received the same impression.

-- 
Eli Schwartz
Bug Wrangler and Trusted User

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/attachments/20180730/70871784/attachment.asc>