From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I'd like to rework this to be much more descriptive:

Problems with the current system

  • A
  • B

Proposed solutions

  • Solutions for problem A
    • Solution foo
      • Discussion
        • Topic
      • overall pros
      • overall cons
    • Solution bar
  • Solutions for problem B

Other discussion topics

  • Fundraising
  • Structured repo pruning method
  • Redesign of the whole AUR and community backend.
  • Related to above: Add support for arch=('any') in the official servers. This will cut down a lot of disk space.
  • Move repo RCS from CVS to git.
  • Move some games from community to arch-games
  • Have some soft limits for uploading new packages, with the recommendation that a TU ask on the mailing list supplying a reason why it should be uploaded. (only required if it would break the limit)
  • etc

Draft of a proposal to vote upon

Required Number of votes

Why three votes? As far as I am concerned we should require at least 10 votes. The "old" TUs know that we use to have 20 votes as a guideline. -- Allan

I thought three votes would be a nice leniant way to start. It would remove the wholly unpopular packages and still retain some slightly popular packages. I was also afraid that if the requirement was too high there would be a huge protest from the Trusted Users.
Daenyth and I did a little research and found that if all packages with under four votes are removed we would save about 2G of space (including 686 and x86-64 repos) and 490/1853 pkgs. That's about a 26% reduction in potential IO requirement since the community daemon and other scripts scan through the whole repo when making sure everything is up to date. That's quite a decent conservation considering it's only packages under four votes.
- Louipc 19:33, 13 November 2008 (EST)