On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 15:58:03 -0600, "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. >
Not that I want to jump right in the middle, but I agree with Aaron. I didn't take his prev email as harsh and if you want to go down that road Bob your could be interpeted wrongly also. > P.S... I am *still* waiting for answers to my questions from yesterday. But please take as much time as you need to answer them. That could be interpreted as being a smart ass. I really am not calling you a smart ass Bob. I have no problems with you I just want to point out that I think that people on both sides are getting a little sensetive with this. I see good points from both sides of the fence. Just an outside observation. Brandon -- Brandon Martin
