On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:29:38 -0700 Aaron Bull Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 7:36 AM, Xyne <[email protected]> wrote: > > I can see the point of removing orphans but I still think that > > using pkgstats as a metric is a bad idea for everything else. > > Casual users, i.e. those who are not actively involved on the forum > > or IRC won't even be aware of pkgstats. Really, who installs a > > distro and actively looks for a way to submit user data? And please > > don't try to tell me that the only users who matter are the ones > > who form the core community. > > > > Then you have the paranoid who won't submit anything, even if > > they're a small group. Ultimately pkgstats only reflect the usage > > of a small group of people with possibly skewed interests. (There > > should be a few statisticians around so it would be interesting to > > hear their analysis of this... let's face it, most people fail at > > interpret ting statistical data and ultimately do so with a bias > > that supports their own agenda... *cough*politicians*cough*.)* > > > +57, these are all topics that were brought up during the original > discussion of using pkgstats as a means to promote packages from > unsupported to community, and they were never really addressed. Our > system of 10 votes or 1% usage in pkgstats is completely arbitrary. We > don't have any statistical means of backing up what those numbers > actually mean; they were picked pretty much just because they sounded > good. There was even a long-time Trusted User who resigned due to the > frustration of arguing over these issues. > > Anyway, my take on it is that as long as the packages aren't orphans > that have been out of date for a *long* time, then what's the harm in > keeping them in the repo? If the packages are being maintained anyway, > it benefits everyone by having them in there, and unless we're running > dangerously low on resources, the cleanup process isn't that > necessary. If we _are_ running dangerously low on resources, is it > better to drop software that may be used by a lot of people, or would > it be better to campaign to raise some money for additional resources? > I'm not saying that we never need to prune things up, but at this > point in time, we don't have any good means of determining what needs > to go aside from the personal judgement of our TUs, which luckily, is > pretty reliable.
I did not have the time to actively participate in this discussion so far but Xyne's and Aaron's opinions are pretty much the same that I think. Moving orphans after some time is good, as people using those can take care of them when they're in the AUR, but that's the only good reason I see in this action. I agree on how the AUR cleanup was proposed but except for the mentioned one, I don't see any really good reason for doing this with the repository. -- Jabber: [email protected] Blog: http://atsutane.freethoughts.de/ Key: 295AFBF4 FP: 39F8 80E5 0E49 A4D1 1341 E8F9 39E4 F17F 295A FBF4
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
