On 04/14/2011 09:19 AM, Peter Lewis wrote:
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, J. W. Birdsong wrote:
On 04/12/11 at 10:00pm, Stefan Husmann wrote:
On 12.04.2011 08:58, Peter Lewis wrote:
Done a bit of research...
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Stefan Husmann wrote:
irssi (VCS) * irssi-svn https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=6163 *
irssi-git https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=25781
These both seem "official", though the main website points to the SVN repo
and not the git one. However, it seems many contributors are using git
since it's easier to send in patches etc. I couldn't find out how often
they're synced, but I assume it's pretty regular. So, it's probably worth
either keeping both, or just going with git only.
I prefer maintaining svn-versions over git-versions in AUR, because the have
revision numbers as $pkgver, not just a date.
Regards Stefan
I maintain irssi-svn, but only picked it up some time ago because it needed
fix/updating. So no big deal if y'all decide it should go. I suppose as the
discussion on this has grown cold I'll assume we're going to keep both?
Seem no real conscience was reached.
It probably doesn't matter if we keep both, since both are official, as long as
both work. So long as maintainers don't feel that their efforts are wasted, that
is... (admittedly maintaining a -svn or -git package in the AUR requires minimal
effort.)
I'll drop/delete it if needed. JB
It's not needed, and given Stefan's message, some people will use it. It's up to
you, as a maintainer, I'd say. Do you have reasons for not using -git?
Pete.
Absolutely none. I'm actually more comfortable/familiar w/ git.
Although Stephan's point about revision numbers is an EXCELLENT point.
As I said previously I only picked package up because it was orphaned
and needed fix/update (don't remember which).
Going on AUR votes only it seems to be the more popular package.
Will keep it around (for now :) )
Thanks to all
