Difference between revisions of "User talk:Quequotion/Arch User Repository"

From ArchWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Feedback: : describe changes and expansion of this subsection, including integration and simplification of FAQ content)
(Feedback: seventh, non-sequential edit)
Line 26: Line 26:
  
 
This was done over six sequential edits, starting [[Special:Diff/573353|here]].
 
This was done over six sequential edits, starting [[Special:Diff/573353|here]].
 +
 +
:A [[Special:Diff/573377|seventh, non-sequential edit]] was made to make "Commenting on packages" less pedantic.

Revision as of 18:22, 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.

Page header

Added "with no official support" to the warning, to be extra explicit that there is no safety net here.

ERROR: One or more PGP signatures could not be verified!; what should I do?

This error is not at all limited to AUR packages, and is better placed in Makepkg#Troubleshooting (which is already done).

Original edit

Feedback

Note: From this point on, the changes become more interdependent and their order more critical. The revised "Feedback" section, for example, links to User:Quequotion/AUR submission guidelines#Orphan rather than have its own embedded tutorial on the matter.

There is a separate section on the page for "Comment syntax" two subsections below the section about comments. It stands to reason these related sections should be merged, or at least put in sequential order.

The "Feedback" section, as of February 3rd, covers comments and voting, but not flagging packages out-of-date, which is tied up in an FAQ that contains redundant information about orphan requests. There's even another FAQ about voting for packages that features a bit of a tutorial on the AUR Web Interface.

All of this can be combined into a much less redundant, one-stop-shop "Feedback" section covering all three types of feedback users can send to AUR package maintainers, with less to read on the page as a whole.

This was done over six sequential edits, starting here.

A seventh, non-sequential edit was made to make "Commenting on packages" less pedantic.