On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:40 PM, w9ya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Aaron Griffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Kristoffer Fossgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > Why is package popularity judged by votes anyway? I never vote. The > >> > reason i never vote is because i don't understand why package > >> > popularity can't simply be judged by download count. I know there's > >> > been some discussion of this topic earlier but as far as i can recall > >> > there were no convincing arguments against it. even if some moron > >> > decides to download his package more times to increase the chance of > >> > adoption(where would the motivation to do this be anyway? if he simply > >> > want's to get it in the pacman system for easier maintenance a simple > >> > guide to make your own repository and add it to pacman would remove > >> > this incurrence in 99% of cases) the TU's and Devs could still choose > >> > to not include the package in the repos. This could also largely be > >> > avoided by only counting i guess certain ip ranges(i'm not an expert > on > >> > these things, but i DO know that counting downloads with some level of > >> > security is a common occurence on the net) > >> > >> We have mirrors. Almost 100 of them. Feel free to contact them all, > >> have them write code to count downloads which then sends the stats to > >> us, and then we can implement this. > >> > >> What you suggest is absolutely not feasible at all. > > > > Quite frankly Aaron, this attitude is not helpful to your case at all. > And > > it leads to worse as we have seen between you and me as of late. No one > > likes to be rebutted in such a manner. > > > > Yes, it is NOT feasible, BUT you can **choose** to say this nicely or > > coarsely. > > Kristoffer, I apologize if this sounded harsh, as Mr Finch seemed to > interpret it. I did not mean it as such - I meant to say that you were > overlooking the fact that we do not have full control over our mirrors > and can only track downloads from one out of *many* servers. > A better attempt. Thank you. Bob F.
