93 % of all CCR entries haven't been updated for over a year - should they be deleted?

ccr

(totte) #1

There are currently 5274 entries in the CCR;

  • 2372 (45 %) of all entries are orphans
  • 1075 (20 %) of all entries are flagged as outdated.
  • 358 (7 %) of all entries were updated or submitted after 2018-01-01
  • 168 (3 %) of all entries were updated or submitted after 2018-01-01 and are maintained by people not in the @team

Should action be taken? If so, what should be done?

  • Delete entries that haven’t been updated for over a year
  • Delete entries that haven’t been updated for over a year that are also either orphans or flagged as outdated
  • Delete entries that haven’t been updated for over a year that are also orphans and flagged as outdated
  • Leave all entries as they are
  • Other action (specify below)

0 voters


(Johannes) #2

I would delete entries, that haven’t been updated for a year, are orphans AND have been flagged outdated. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean the existing PKGBUILD files are bad. Maybe just updating the version number is sufficient. I think they may be useful for others, who want to start taking care of a package. But we never know…


(totte) #3

I was able to remove the redundant option in the poll, but I was unaware of the fact that this would reset the poll. @brikler, @brli, @Skool182, @s8321414, and @vulptex, I apologize for the inconvenience. Please vote again, if you will.

Depending on the feedback and the course of action decided on, I might post a complete list of all entries for review by the community before removal.


(Francesco) #4

Another option could be also to at least remove the maintainer for packages that haven’t been updated for over a year and that are flagged as outdated. Like this if the PKGBUILD is still good, it’s easier for someone else to adopt the package.


(tomaggio) #5

I#m the maintainer of a canon Print package which is not updated for over a year. But Canon did not update the package too. So the binary is the Latest. What shall i do in this situation? Maybe what Johannes proposed. …


(totte) #6

Vote “Delete entries that haven’t been updated for over a year that are also orphans and flagged as outdated” or “Delete entries that haven’t been updated for over a year that are also either orphans or flagged as outdated”.


(tomaggio) #7

Sorry voted other action, please change my vote virtual to “Delete entries that haven’t been updated for over a year that are also orphans and flagged as outdated”


(totte) #8

I cannot change the votes cast by others than myself.


(tomaggio) #9

Ah ok i found it out. :grin: :ok_hand:


(Bobby Rong) #10

93%…:open_mouth:
I wonder if this situation will happen again…:thinking:
Simply deleting entries might not work the long run (?)


(ericjs) #11

In principle I against deleting information for some desire for tidiness, unless the information really interferes with finding other information. Because we can search the CCR I don’t think that is the case. What exactly is the problem we are trying to solve?

I often search the CCR for a piece of software. Sometimes what I find is out of date. Sometimes it works anyway and is all I need to get some thing done I needed the software for. If not, or if I need a newer version, this can still be a starting point for me to make an updated version of the software work, or for adapt the latest AUR package.


(totte) #12

I’ve received complaints regarding the CCR being in a state of abandon. Some find this to be enough of a nuisance that they leave. I would like to see how the community at large feels about it, before going further.


(Luca Giambonini) #13

I will go with:
Delete all entries that are orphans.
An orphan pkg means that nobody has interest to maintain it, and most likely is outdated.


(ericjs) #14

So the idea is, users see abandoned or outdated packages and get a bad impression about the state of Chakra (or its software coverage, at least).

I presume they see these abandoned or outdated packages because they are searching for them (I don’t know why else they would see them). Deleting these just means they find nothing. Does that really change anything? Do we really think so little of our users’ intelligence that we think it does?


(Bobby Rong) #15

In fact… I prefer the way KCP (KaOS Community Packages) does. https://kaos-community-packages.github.io/

They don’t fork the AUR app, instead they host all packages on GitHub.

We cannot maintain a package which is not orphan here. But in KCP, the concept “one maintainer for one package” doesn’t exist. By joining the GitHub group, you can maintain all packages and enjoy all the benefits of GIT.

The fact is, some people don’t abandon their “maintainer” status when they no longer do packaging for CCR. And those who want to make contribution to CCR don’ t have the patience to flag it, wait for two weeks, write to chakra team and wait for their reply…


(totte) #16

I’m not opposed to replacing the existing CCR with something else, but it is not a priority right now, nor is it in the scope of this discussion. I’m the only active @staff member handling incoming requests, and the @team members are busy packaging.


The count of each option should have been mentioned in the poll itself - hindsight is 20/20. Also, perhaps the second option should have been split into two.

Selections Entries
Unmodified for over a year 4914 (93 %)
Unmodified for over a year, and orphans or flagged as outdated 2605 (49 %)
Unmodified for over a year, and either orphans or flagged as outdated 1810 (34 %)
Unmodified for over a year, and orphans 2338 (44 %)
Unmodified for over a year, and outdated 1062 (20 %)
Unmodified for over a year, and orphans and flagged as outdated 795 (15 %)

(Neofytos Kolokotronis) #17

I would prefer to see the poll come up after the discussion has been made, so we can collectively brainstorm on each available scenario and make an informed decision afterwards.

Can we create together a list with positives and negatives for each scenario?


(totte) #18

The poll has been created, to see if there is a general consensus in addition to the feedback sent to me in private. I will take the opinions expressed here into account when making an informed decision.

By all means, go ahead. The data has been made available.


(totte) #21

I’ve come to understand that this topic and its poll was not handled in the best way possible.

  • The title “93 % of all CCR entries haven’t been updated for over a year - should they be deleted?” could instead have been “Should action be taken by the staff for CCR entries that meet certain conditions, such as being outdated and orphans?” or something else that is less suggestive and sensationalized.
  • I should have made it clear that this is a non-binding vote, i.e. the results are advisory, rather than actionable. It will indicate the majority opinion, but will not necessarily result in that opinion being acted upon.
  • My intentions when starting this topic with a poll in the opening post was to kickstart the discussion by presenting a set of possible courses of action. While I did include the option “Other action (specify below)” I could also have clarified that motivations for why anyone voted for a particular option are welcome as well.
  • An alternative approach to starting the topic with a poll in the opening post could be to wait for the discussion to come to an end, before creating the poll. However, I’m not sure how to tell if an online discussion has come to an end - should a topic timer be set, that the topic is closed after e.g. a week?
  • I voted by mistake and I cannot remove my vote. It was not my intention to come off as too assertive or aggressive by endorsing a particular option - which is why I didn’t motivate my preference in the opening post, or in any reply made.
  • The count of affected entries by each option should have been mentioned in the poll itself, or at least in the same post.
  • I should have taken more care when writing down the options in English, to match that of the SQL queries.
  • The second option, “Delete entries that haven’t been updated for over a year that are also either orphans or flagged as outdated”, should have been split into two; “Delete entries that haven’t been updated for over a year that are also orphans” and “Delete entries that haven’t been updated for over a year that are also flagged as outdated”. Or, these two options should have been available in addition to the current options.

I apologize for any confusion and will do my best to keep this in mind, should I create another topic such as this. If anything is unclear about this topic, please ask and I will answer as best as I am able to.

If you have feedback in general for as to how polls should be used, please reply to this post as a linked topic (click the :link: icon below this post and then click :heavy_plus_sign: New topic ) and select the #meta category.


(system) automatically bumped #22