On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 08:50:48PM -0500, Daniel M. Capella via aur-general wrote: > Quoting David Runge (2019-01-26 05:23:37) > > On 2019-01-26 08:01:46 (+0100), Alad Wenter via aur-general wrote: > > > Not too long after I became TU I deleted something of ~2000 packages, > > > based on similar "criteria" and after seeing no "objections" on IRC > > > after a while. After the deed was done I got emails, angry shouting on > > > IRC and complaints for the following 6 months on BBS and other places. > > "they took our packages" *rantyface* *screaming* > > > > > tl;dr use requests like everyone else, or patch aurweb to have "batch > > > requests" > > Yes, please requests! This way stuff at least gets to the mailing list > > and is somewhat documented. > > > > -- > > https://sleepmap.de > > Thank you for your level-headed responses. More to add to my long list > of aurweb patch ideas. > > I wonder if Johannes' "Make delete and merge links create an > auto-accepted request" patch[] being deployed would be sufficient. I > readily accept requests for this criteria, but couldn't imagine manually > accepting almost 500 of them with the current setup. > > https://patchwork.archlinux.org/patch/911/ > That's exactly the issue. It's not because you or I might accept these criteria (and corresponding requests) as valid, that everyone else does. e.g.
https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-requests/2017-November/020347.html As to the patch linked, I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion. The "paper trail" from such a mass deletion wouldn't include a reason for said deletion, nor a chance for people to oppose deletion of specific packages. Alad > -- > Best, > polyzen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
