Re: [aur-general] [aur-dev] Missing Co-Maintainer Search Criteria on AUR
On 11/05/2016 04:55 AM, Lukas Fleischer wrote: > I actually wanted to implement this a while ago but deferred it because > I had problems finding a good UI. The two straightforward options are: > > 1. Adjust the maintainer filter such that it also looks for >co-maintainers... Which would essentially result in packages you >co-maintain being listed under "My Packages". > > 2. Add a new co-maintainer filter. Then, in addition to "My Packages", >add a "Packages I Co-Maintain" link. > > I do not like the first option because packages you co-maintain differ > from "your" packages. Co-maintainers do not have the same privileges as > maintainers. > > I also do not really like the second option. Adding more and more > options and links clutters the UI and makes things inconvenient. For > example, we added a filter for exact package name searches in commit > 1c55e6b (Add option to search for exact name matches only (fixes > FS#23556)., 2011-04-06). I wish we had implemented it the way archweb > does it [1] back then. It is much more intuitive and clear. > > Transferring this idea to co-maintainer search, maybe the "My Packages" > page should have two sections: A list with packages one maintains, > followed by a second table of packages one co-maintains. It is not > entirely clear how to implement this as part of the package search, > especially when it comes to pagination. So, many topics to discuss > before coming up with a patch... > > [1] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?q=linux > That (split results view) sounds like a good way of doing it. A search for maintainers could return co-maintainers as well, but separated. As for pagination, just return co-maintainers at the end (the last page)... I assume since co-maintained packages are "lesser", people will be less interested in them. There is no need to restrict the co-maintainers search to your own packages only, so it has nothing to do with "My Packages" as opposed to the maintainer search it is a shortcut for. ... Methinks now is a good time to move the discussion to [aur-dev]... -- Eli Schwartz
Re: [aur-general] Missing Co-Maintainer Search Criteria on AUR
On Sat, 05 Nov 2016 at 10:00:35, NicoHood wrote: > I think adding a manual co-maintain filter is enough for now (option 2 > without special UI). I do not really need a special button etc, just > somehow an option to show the packages. This way the feature could be > implemented possibly simple while keeping the UI idea open for now. > (However I like the idea of the "Packages I Co-Maintain" section idea). Simply adding new filters before thinking ahead is something I would rather avoid, though. If we find a better UI later (maybe something like the split maintainers page I suggested), we cannot silently drop the co-maintainer filter again because links and scripts might already use it. For the same reason, we still have that legacy "Exact name" filter instead of being consistent with archweb now. Make a plan, then implement -- not the other way round...
Re: [aur-general] Missing Co-Maintainer Search Criteria on AUR
On 11/05/2016 09:55 AM, Lukas Fleischer wrote: > On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 at 22:24:32, Johannes Löthberg via aur-general wrote: >> This belongs on either the bugtracker[0] or aur-dev rather than >> aur-general. Essentially the reason there isn't currently support for >> it is that both me and Lukas has been rather busy lately, but we'd >> gladly accept patches for it! > > I actually wanted to implement this a while ago but deferred it because > I had problems finding a good UI. The two straightforward options are: > > 1. Adjust the maintainer filter such that it also looks for >co-maintainers... Which would essentially result in packages you >co-maintain being listed under "My Packages". > > 2. Add a new co-maintainer filter. Then, in addition to "My Packages", >add a "Packages I Co-Maintain" link. > > I do not like the first option because packages you co-maintain differ > from "your" packages. Co-maintainers do not have the same privileges as > maintainers. > > I also do not really like the second option. Adding more and more > options and links clutters the UI and makes things inconvenient. For > example, we added a filter for exact package name searches in commit > 1c55e6b (Add option to search for exact name matches only (fixes > FS#23556)., 2011-04-06). I wish we had implemented it the way archweb > does it [1] back then. It is much more intuitive and clear. > > Transferring this idea to co-maintainer search, maybe the "My Packages" > page should have two sections: A list with packages one maintains, > followed by a second table of packages one co-maintains. It is not > entirely clear how to implement this as part of the package search, > especially when it comes to pagination. So, many topics to discuss > before coming up with a patch... > > [1] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?q=linux > I think adding a manual co-maintain filter is enough for now (option 2 without special UI). I do not really need a special button etc, just somehow an option to show the packages. This way the feature could be implemented possibly simple while keeping the UI idea open for now. (However I like the idea of the "Packages I Co-Maintain" section idea). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [aur-general] Missing Co-Maintainer Search Criteria on AUR
On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 at 22:24:32, Johannes Löthberg via aur-general wrote: > This belongs on either the bugtracker[0] or aur-dev rather than > aur-general. Essentially the reason there isn't currently support for > it is that both me and Lukas has been rather busy lately, but we'd > gladly accept patches for it! I actually wanted to implement this a while ago but deferred it because I had problems finding a good UI. The two straightforward options are: 1. Adjust the maintainer filter such that it also looks for co-maintainers... Which would essentially result in packages you co-maintain being listed under "My Packages". 2. Add a new co-maintainer filter. Then, in addition to "My Packages", add a "Packages I Co-Maintain" link. I do not like the first option because packages you co-maintain differ from "your" packages. Co-maintainers do not have the same privileges as maintainers. I also do not really like the second option. Adding more and more options and links clutters the UI and makes things inconvenient. For example, we added a filter for exact package name searches in commit 1c55e6b (Add option to search for exact name matches only (fixes FS#23556)., 2011-04-06). I wish we had implemented it the way archweb does it [1] back then. It is much more intuitive and clear. Transferring this idea to co-maintainer search, maybe the "My Packages" page should have two sections: A list with packages one maintains, followed by a second table of packages one co-maintains. It is not entirely clear how to implement this as part of the package search, especially when it comes to pagination. So, many topics to discuss before coming up with a patch... [1] https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?q=linux
[aur-general] Signoff report for [community-testing]
=== Signoff report for [community-testing] === https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/ There are currently: * 2 new packages in last 24 hours * 0 known bad packages * 0 packages not accepting signoffs * 0 fully signed off packages * 9 packages missing signoffs * 0 packages older than 14 days (Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one package per architecture, even if it is a split package.) == New packages in [community-testing] in last 24 hours (2 total) == * obs-studio-0.16.4-1 (i686) * obs-studio-0.16.4-1 (x86_64) == Incomplete signoffs for [community] (9 total) == * mitmproxy-0.18.2-1 (any) 0/2 signoffs * gammu-1.37.91-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * kmymoney-4.8.0-4 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * obs-studio-0.16.4-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * python-gammu-2.7-1 (i686) 0/1 signoffs * gammu-1.37.91-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * kmymoney-4.8.0-4 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * obs-studio-0.16.4-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs * python-gammu-2.7-1 (x86_64) 0/2 signoffs == Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours == 1. bisson - 6 signoffs 2. pid1 - 4 signoffs 3. hcartiaux - 2 signoffs 4. Irishluck83 - 2 signoffs 5. grawity - 1 signoffs
