On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 11:16, Xyne <[email protected]> wrote: > keenerd wrote: > >> Hello all. I am applying to become a TU. My sponsor is Xyne. >> >> My name is Kyle Keen, though my handle for irc/bbs/the-last-12-years >> has been Keenerd. I've been using Arch for a while now, from back >> when it was still known for refusing to package info files. Before >> that I did a wee bit of dev work for Puppy Linux. I actually got a >> bash gui app (yay xdialog) into the ISO but please don't look up the >> code, it was my first bash script and is rather terrifying. Lately I >> am a 24 year old freelance electrical engineer and spend my days >> writing C, my nights writing Python and during the twilight hours some >> Bash. >> >> Right now I host the bugbot in #archlinux-bugs and I've got a few AUR >> packages(1). Of them, ScrotWM and Slurm probably deserve to be in >> [community]. I've written several well-liked metatools for Arch >> including Pacgraph, Pacmatic, and Aurphan. Aurphan is the main reason >> for trying to apply. >> >> Pierre requested a feature to cross check official packages as well as >> the AUR(2). I was a little shocked to find 35 official orphans on my >> system. Clearly, we are understaffed. Arch has been nothing short of >> amazing and I want to do what I can to help keep it going. Other >> goals include improving the maintenance tools and porting Arch to old >> or cheap architectures. I also mirrored the AUR for a while and have >> a nearly complete copy of the old comments from before the Great Table >> Drop that should be re-inserted. >> >> Thanks for your consideration, >> Kyle >> http://kmkeen.com >> >> 1) http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?SeB=m&K=keenerd&SO=d&SB=v >> 2) https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=108693 > > > The discussion period is nearly over but I have something that I want to bring > up after reading though the nearly 100 new messages on aur-general. > > keenerd wrote: > >> If no one can think of a better way to deal with the nonconforming >> packages, I'll write a bot to post insulting comments. Personally, I >> really like this solution. The AUR has always had a wild west >> frontier / insane asylum feel to it. The less regulation, the better >> it works. But a few well placed suggestions could help make the two >> thousand maintainers do a better job. > > Heiko Baums wrote: > >> Am Mon, 6 Dec 2010 16:53:08 -0500 >> schrieb keenerd <[email protected]>: >> >> > > find /var/abs -name *.png | wc -l == 60 >> > >> > Of +4800 packages, that is 1.2%. The AUR is more than twice that >> > rate. But while we are running the numbers to determine best >> > practices..... >> >> This would be about 480000+ e-mails to users if your bot continues >> writing those AUR comments. That's too many. >> >> As I said before, please, don't do this. You can, of course, let such a >> bot help you finding "bad" packages. But you have to verify its results >> personally, before you write such AUR comments. >> >> Such automations are usually pretty unreliable except they are written >> very thoughtfully and are tested a lot. >> >> And regarding the 1.2%... Don't trust any statistics you did not even >> fake. >> >> Heiko > > I'm a bit bothered by the way that you've handled this. You proceeded to write > and launch the bot based on your personal interpretation of the rules without > waiting for any definitive conclusion from the ongoing discussion about them. > > Comments aren't that big a deal, even if there will be many confused > maintainers, but with TU status on the AUR you could do much more with > disastrous consequences. > > Considering this and the still-ongoing discussion about the AUR guidelines, do > you agree that it would be prudent to be more patient in the future and wait > until we've come to a conclusion before going ahead with something like this > again? >
Wow he actually launched that bot? I thought it was a joke. It seemed so stupid that I didn't think anyone would take it seriously. That definitely opens up some other perspectives on the application...
