Ok, five consecutive negative replies ought to be enough, even if some of them look like they just read the last reply before them and simply missed my point. If I would've start this in the forums instead and maybe I could get a couple of neutral or even positive (in a constructive way) comments, who knows? Clearly my fault... this is a mailing list after all!
Still, thanks for the replies ;) On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 01:20, Loui Chang<[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu 27 Aug 2009 01:47 +0200, Arkham wrote: >> >> On 27/ago/09, at 01:35, Nélson «VuDu» Cunha wrote: >> >> >Sorry, but please don't try to make it sound like I said that because >> >that's not an argument at all. >> >Following what I said before, making steps harder isn't necessarily >> >going to make people walk through them more carefully. >> >I don't agree that an on-line code editor would make people do more >> >mistakes, because good maintainers would continue to test the PKGBUILD >> >before making the changes on the on-line editor, or just simply not >> >using it. >> >An editor would just save the pain to archive and upload (not testing >> >them) simple changes to the PKGBUILD, that make probably the biggest >> >part of AUR packages updates. >> >> I don't understand why the developers should write, test and deploy >> new code in the website to perform a task that can already be done >> with CLI tools. Which is exactly "the pain to archive and upload"? >> makepkg--source && $AUR_HELPER *.src.tar.gz isn't much of pain to me >> :) >> Another issue that comes to my mind: how would you update the md5sums >> with the online editor? > > Yeah this was already brought up, not too long ago. > An editor will not be implemented for the AUR. There are already many > capable editors available such as vim, or emacs. Please choose one of > them. > > There's no point in adding an ad hoc informally-specified bug-ridden > slow implementation of half of a text editor to the AUR. > > You're lucky enough to get a textbox for comments. ;) > > Good luck! > >
