Re: [aur-general] Metadata from aur3

[Johannes Löthberg]

On 27/11, kaptoxic wrote:

On 11/24/2015 06:56 PM, Johannes Löthberg wrote:

On 24/11, kaptoxic wrote:

Is there a way to retrieve package metadata from aur3 (votes and
comments)  and migrate them to aur4? There was a question about merging
comments during the aur3-to-aur4 migration period, but I am wondering if
that is still possible. If data is still around, perhaps a script could
be written that extracts the appropriate information and adjusts it for
aur4. (It seems unfortunate that some of the packages that were migrated
too late lost all of that metadata.)


The data was removed when it was announced that it would be.
Maintainers had plenty of time and ample warning beforehand.


No, they did not. Anyway, thanks for the info.


They had 2 months to migrate their packages, and they were told about 
it, and the fact that it would be happening has been talked about on 
this ML since December last year, and was emailed about it before the 2 
months started. In what way is that not plenty of time and ample 
warning?


--
Sincerely,
 Johannes Löthberg
 PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5
 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]

[Arch Website Notification]

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/

There are currently:
* 0 new packages in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 0 fully signed off packages
* 15 packages missing signoffs
* 13 packages older than 14 days

(Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by
pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one
package per architecture, even if it is a split package.)



== Incomplete signoffs for [community] (15 total) ==

* salt-2015.8.2-1 (any)
0/2 signoffs
* acpi_call-1.1.0-37 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* bbswitch-0.8-39 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* r8168-8.040.00-9 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r3-2 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* tp_smapi-0.41-76 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* vhba-module-20140928-20 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* virtualbox-modules-5.0.10-3 (i686)
0/1 signoffs
* acpi_call-1.1.0-37 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* bbswitch-0.8-39 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* r8168-8.040.00-9 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r3-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* tp_smapi-0.41-76 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* vhba-module-20140928-20 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* virtualbox-modules-5.0.10-3 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs


== All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (13 total) ==

* r8168-8.040.00-9 (i686), since 2015-11-04
* r8168-8.040.00-9 (x86_64), since 2015-11-04
* vhba-module-20140928-20 (i686), since 2015-11-04
* vhba-module-20140928-20 (x86_64), since 2015-11-04
* acpi_call-1.1.0-37 (i686), since 2015-11-04
* acpi_call-1.1.0-37 (x86_64), since 2015-11-04
* rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r3-2 (i686), since 2015-11-04
* rt3562sta-2.4.1.1_r3-2 (x86_64), since 2015-11-04
* bbswitch-0.8-39 (i686), since 2015-11-04
* bbswitch-0.8-39 (x86_64), since 2015-11-04
* tp_smapi-0.41-76 (i686), since 2015-11-04
* tp_smapi-0.41-76 (x86_64), since 2015-11-04
* salt-2015.8.2-1 (any), since 2015-11-13


== Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==

1. heftig - 3 signoffs

Re: [aur-general] Metadata from aur3

[Mark Weiman]

On Sat, 2015-11-28 at 15:16 +0100, Johannes Löthberg wrote:
> They had 2 months to migrate their packages, and they were told about
> it, and the fact that it would be happening has been talked about on 
> this ML since December last year, and was emailed about it before the
> 2 
> months started. In what way is that not plenty of time and ample 
> warning?
> 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also think I remember something about a
period of time if the maintainer didn't migrate it, it became fair
game. If that was the case, if a package didn't make it to the aur4
during that time, there was not much interest in it.

If my memory isn't failing me, it was two months total, the first was
only maintainers from aur3, and the second was anyone who wanted to
move some over.

Mark Weiman

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: [aur-general] Metadata from aur3

[Joakim Hernberg]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 15:16:47 +0100
Johannes Löthberg  wrote:

> They had 2 months to migrate their packages, and they were told about 
> it, and the fact that it would be happening has been talked about on 
> this ML since December last year, and was emailed about it before the
> 2 months started. In what way is that not plenty of time and ample 
> warning?

It's water under the bridge by now, but I also think it's a pity the
meta data was lost.  Warning or not ;)

-- 

   Joakim

Re: [aur-general] Metadata from aur3

[Johannes Löthberg]

On 28/11, Mark Weiman wrote:

On Sat, 2015-11-28 at 15:16 +0100, Johannes Löthberg wrote:

They had 2 months to migrate their packages, and they were told about
it, and the fact that it would be happening has been talked about on
this ML since December last year, and was emailed about it before the
2
months started. In what way is that not plenty of time and ample
warning?



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also think I remember something about a
period of time if the maintainer didn't migrate it, it became fair
game. If that was the case, if a package didn't make it to the aur4
during that time, there was not much interest in it.

If my memory isn't failing me, it was two months total, the first was
only maintainers from aur3, and the second was anyone who wanted to
move some over.


You're not wrong, but how is this relevant?


--
Sincerely,
 Johannes Löthberg
 PGP Key ID: 0x50FB9B273A9D0BB5
 https://theos.kyriasis.com/~kyrias/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [aur-general] Metadata from aur3

[Mark Weiman]

On Sat, 2015-11-28 at 20:50 +0100, Johannes Löthberg wrote:
> On 28/11, Mark Weiman wrote:
> > On Sat, 2015-11-28 at 15:16 +0100, Johannes Löthberg wrote:
> > > They had 2 months to migrate their packages, and they were told
> > > about
> > > it, and the fact that it would be happening has been talked about
> > > on
> > > this ML since December last year, and was emailed about it before
> > > the
> > > 2
> > > months started. In what way is that not plenty of time and ample
> > > warning?
> > > 
> > 
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I also think I remember something
> > about a
> > period of time if the maintainer didn't migrate it, it became fair
> > game. If that was the case, if a package didn't make it to the aur4
> > during that time, there was not much interest in it.
> > 
> > If my memory isn't failing me, it was two months total, the first
> > was
> > only maintainers from aur3, and the second was anyone who wanted to
> > move some over.
> 
> You're not wrong, but how is this relevant?
> 
> 

Just further saying that there was plenty of opportunity that someone
could have moved a package to the new version.

Mark Weiman