Difference between revisions of "User talk:Quequotion/AUR submission guidelines"

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Other requests: : describe changes to this subsection)
(Promoting packages to the community repository: : describe the creation of this subsection; integration of FAQ content; post-reversion edit)
Line 24: Line 24:
  
 
See how I tried to work this out the first time, over six sequential edits, starting [[Special:Diff/566414|here]].
 
See how I tried to work this out the first time, over six sequential edits, starting [[Special:Diff/566414|here]].
 +
 +
=== [[User:Quequotion/AUR submission guidelines#Promoting packages to the community repository|Promoting packages to the community repository]] ===
 +
 +
{{Note|From this point on, the changes become more interdependent and their order more critical. This new section, for example, becomes mutually linked to [[User:Quequotion/Arch User Repository#Voting for packages]] as they relate to each other.}}
 +
 +
There are two FAQs with information about getting packages into the community repository, as well as it being mentioned along side voting for packages in various places in the article.
 +
 +
To reduce the search time users face trying to get all the information together, this section merges all of [[Arch User Repository#How to get a PKGBUILD into the community repository?|one FAQ]] with some of the information from [[Arch User Repository#What is the difference between the Arch User Repository and the community repository?|another FAQ]].
 +
 +
This was done in three sequential edits, starting [[Special:Diff/573360|here]]; note that the second edit is actually to link "Voting for packages" to this section.
 +
 +
Since the reversion, it has been brought to my attention that "packages in source format" is a more controversial terminology than I had considered. I have since reworded the remaining "[[Special:Diff/575185|What is the difference between the Arch User Repository and the community repository?]]" FAQ, which resulted in further reduction as a bonus.

Revision as of 18:21, 12 June 2019

Breakdown of changes

I've been told my changes are hard to follow, and this--in part--led to the reversion of several months' work on the AUR page and splitting half of it into a protected page. I will try here to describe the changes as best I can. Nonetheless, if you are looking to compare the draft to the current page that is what you should do; rather than digging through edit histories, compare the two at their current state (just like you would two drafts of a physical document), and leave feedback from this comparison.

As some changes depend on others, this breakdown will be in the order such changes are intended to be made.

Publishing new package content

The tip regarding gitignore(5) is located at the bottom of this section; so it is likely that first-time readers will miss it when pushing their package repository. This belongs closer to the section where a user is told how to create a repository, and backed up by use of git add -f in the example.

Another change here was to relegate several points of advice that are not necessarily required parts of the process into a Template:Note.

Finally, the instructions about adding and committing could be more optimally worded.

This was done in four sequential edits, starting here.

Other requests

First of all, it would be logical to list the requests in the same order as they appear on the AUR Web Interface.

This section is a long bulleted list with an another bulleted list within it; it could really use a facelift. Giving each request its own subsection would also be handy for other sections of the page to link to.

Since the reversion, I've been told the statement regarding rejection of package deletion requests is in dispute; we should do something about that.

See how I tried to work this out the first time, over six sequential edits, starting here.

Promoting packages to the community repository

Note: From this point on, the changes become more interdependent and their order more critical. This new section, for example, becomes mutually linked to User:Quequotion/Arch User Repository#Voting for packages as they relate to each other.

There are two FAQs with information about getting packages into the community repository, as well as it being mentioned along side voting for packages in various places in the article.

To reduce the search time users face trying to get all the information together, this section merges all of one FAQ with some of the information from another FAQ.

This was done in three sequential edits, starting here; note that the second edit is actually to link "Voting for packages" to this section.

Since the reversion, it has been brought to my attention that "packages in source format" is a more controversial terminology than I had considered. I have since reworded the remaining "What is the difference between the Arch User Repository and the community repository?" FAQ, which resulted in further reduction as a bonus.