Re: [aur-general] pisg-fixed

[Christos Nouskas]

On 20 November 2017 at 17:40, Jeremy Audet via aur-general <
aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:

> >
> > well, i beg your pardon if i made the assumption that TU and the entire
> > AUR structure was smart enough to understand a merge request of a
> > differently-owned package as an orphan request for a clearly fixed
> package.
> >
> > i humbly beseech myself towards your graces and fall upon my sword for
> > expecting common sense of process.
>
>
> At my workplace, someone displaying this kind of attitude will be fired. At
> my home, someone displaying this kind of attitude will be kicked out,
> Thanksgiving or no.
>

This person thinks other people live with an AUR browser tab open and their
finger on F5. Having missed the first error report I left it unattended,
but as soon as I saw the second one today I fixed it. Still, I got within
hours apart notices of impatient comments, merge and orphan requests.

Dude, let us breathe. Orphaned it, have fun. Just stop nagging, please.


-- X
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?SeB=m=nous

Re: [aur-general] pisg-fixed

[Jeremy Audet via aur-general]

>
> well, i beg your pardon if i made the assumption that TU and the entire
> AUR structure was smart enough to understand a merge request of a
> differently-owned package as an orphan request for a clearly fixed package.
>
> i humbly beseech myself towards your graces and fall upon my sword for
> expecting common sense of process.
>
> i think this thread has run its course.
>

At my workplace, someone displaying this kind of attitude will be fired. At
my home, someone displaying this kind of attitude will be kicked out,
Thanksgiving or no.

Consider reviewing the Arch Linux code of conduct
, especially the
portion on respect
.

Re: [aur-general] pisg-fixed

[Morten Linderud]

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 10:06:13AM -0500, brent s. wrote:
> well, i beg your pardon if i made the assumption that TU and the entire
> AUR structure was smart enough to understand a merge request of a
> differently-owned package as an orphan request for a clearly fixed package.
> 

Yes, we understand that. That is why it was rejected.

We have asked you to submit an orphan request instead, and trying to clear up on
the confusion. But your attituide is not helping.

-- 
Morten Linderud

PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [aur-general] pisg-fixed

[Eli Schwartz]

On 11/20/2017 09:56 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> Since merging only merges votes and comments, I cannot fathom in any
> way, shape, or form why you thought there was any functional utility in
> creating a new pkgbase, then deleting it and merging nonexistent votes
> and comments into the original pkgbase.

My bad, I misread that and didn't realize that in fact what you wanted
to do was mutilate the AUR by deleting the pisg package and replacing it
with your new package, where your new package has a lie for a pkgname.

Please don't complain on the public mailing lists when the TUs reject
your request to mutilate the AUR.

-- 
Eli Schwartz



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] pisg-fixed

[brent s.]

On 11/20/2017 09:56 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> On 11/20/2017 09:41 AM, brent s. wrote:
>> "Merge requests are for when one package is replacing another one. Users
>> still have to resubmit a package under a new name and may request
>> merging of the old version's comments and votes. This has nothing to do
>> with 'git merge' and is not similar to github's merge requests."
> 
> And you're missing the part where "why on earth would one package ever
> be replacing another one".
> 
> To which there is a pretty simple answer: you generally don't, and you
> certainly don't try to engineer such a situation for the fun of it by
> perverting the meaning of a pkgname.
> 
> This is meant for situations when for example upstream has renamed the
> software, and a new package with a new pkgname must be uploaded, but the
> comments and votes from the old name are still relevant.
> 
> The wiki page did an excellent job IMHO in distinguishing between
> "merging the old version" which is okay, and "creating a new package to
> merge *into* the old one".
> 
> Since merging only merges votes and comments, I cannot fathom in any
> way, shape, or form why you thought there was any functional utility in
> creating a new pkgbase, then deleting it and merging nonexistent votes
> and comments into the original pkgbase.
> 

well, i beg your pardon if i made the assumption that TU and the entire
AUR structure was smart enough to understand a merge request of a
differently-owned package as an orphan request for a clearly fixed package.

i humbly beseech myself towards your graces and fall upon my sword for
expecting common sense of process.

i think this thread has run its course.

-- 
brent saner
https://square-r00t.net/
GPG info: https://square-r00t.net/gpg-info



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] pisg-fixed

[Eli Schwartz]

On 11/20/2017 09:41 AM, brent s. wrote:
> "Merge requests are for when one package is replacing another one. Users
> still have to resubmit a package under a new name and may request
> merging of the old version's comments and votes. This has nothing to do
> with 'git merge' and is not similar to github's merge requests."

And you're missing the part where "why on earth would one package ever
be replacing another one".

To which there is a pretty simple answer: you generally don't, and you
certainly don't try to engineer such a situation for the fun of it by
perverting the meaning of a pkgname.

This is meant for situations when for example upstream has renamed the
software, and a new package with a new pkgname must be uploaded, but the
comments and votes from the old name are still relevant.

The wiki page did an excellent job IMHO in distinguishing between
"merging the old version" which is okay, and "creating a new package to
merge *into* the old one".

Since merging only merges votes and comments, I cannot fathom in any
way, shape, or form why you thought there was any functional utility in
creating a new pkgbase, then deleting it and merging nonexistent votes
and comments into the original pkgbase.

>> "Users still have to resubmit a package under a new name"
> 
>> "resubmit...new name"
> 
> i never made the claim this was github, and i find it silly that you're
> inferring i ever had that assumption.

Don't blame Scimmia, he was just so confused about what you were trying
to do that he was trying to assign some sort of meaning to your actions,
no matter how wild the meaning.

I guess he's just a nice person who wants to think you had some sort of
assumption of any sort of nature (or indeed any thought processes at all).

-- 
Eli Schwartz



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] pisg-fixed

[brent s.]

On 11/20/2017 09:18 AM, Doug Newgard wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:58:47 -0500
> "brent s."  wrote:
> 
>> TU Alad has deleted this package:
>>
>> """
>> Request #9816 has been rejected by Alad [1]:
>>
>> File an orphan request, duplicate packages with meaningless "fixed"
>> suffixes are not acceptable.
>>
>> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Alad/
>> """
>>
>> IGNORING the entire reason for creating the package - to merge the fixed
>> version to the existing package, the request for which was done minutes
>> after the package was created.
>>
>> What the hell?
>>
> 
> Merge does not do what you think it does. This is not github. Read the AUR 
> wiki
> page.
> 


"Merge requests are for when one package is replacing another one. Users
still have to resubmit a package under a new name and may request
merging of the old version's comments and votes. This has nothing to do
with 'git merge' and is not similar to github's merge requests."

> "Users still have to resubmit a package under a new name"

> "resubmit...new name"

i never made the claim this was github, and i find it silly that you're
inferring i ever had that assumption.

-- 
brent saner
https://square-r00t.net/
GPG info: https://square-r00t.net/gpg-info



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [aur-general] pisg-fixed

[Doug Newgard]

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 07:58:47 -0500
"brent s."  wrote:

> TU Alad has deleted this package:
> 
> """
> Request #9816 has been rejected by Alad [1]:
> 
> File an orphan request, duplicate packages with meaningless "fixed"
> suffixes are not acceptable.
> 
> [1] https://aur.archlinux.org/account/Alad/
> """
> 
> IGNORING the entire reason for creating the package - to merge the fixed
> version to the existing package, the request for which was done minutes
> after the package was created.
> 
> What the hell?
> 

Merge does not do what you think it does. This is not github. Read the AUR wiki
page.

Re: [aur-general] pisg-fixed

[Morten Linderud]

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 07:58:47AM -0500, brent s. wrote:
> IGNORING the entire reason for creating the package - to merge the fixed
> version to the existing package, the request for which was done minutes
> after the package was created.
> 
> What the hell?
> 

Yes, creating new packages to merge into unmaintained packages is not how you
solve the problem. Submit an orphan request, wait for it to be accepted, adopt
the package and submit a fixed PKGBUILD.

-- 
Morten Linderud

PGP: 9C02FF419FECBE16


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature