Some notes on AUR 4.0.0
As Florian already mentioned in another email, I am away until June 1st.
I am on a roaming data plan, so I won't be able to reply to all the
feedback and questions on the new AUR until then. I hope that I am going
to address at least some of the concerns and questions here, though.
For the granularity of the Git repositories, having one repository per
package (i.e. package base) is a natural choice. The other possibility
is to use one single large repository with branches for each package.
Florian told me about gitnamespaces, which allows for combining the
advantages from both approaches, and I am going to check whether we can
easily use it for the AUR when I am back home. Using one repository per
maintainer, however, is extremely inconvenient and leads to unnecessary
clutter when changing ownership. One of our main objectives is to have
full history of all packages and this means that we would need to
perform quite cumbersome history import/export operations whenever a
package is disowned or adopted. Also, I am not aware of any
disadvantages of the "one repository per package" approach apart from
merges being inconvenient (which happen much less frequent than package
adoptions, however) and the spurious "I don't like many Git
As Florian said, using gitnamespaces will probably lead to better
storage efficiency and I am fine with increasing the blob size limit to
As described in the notification draft I sent to aur-dev and aur-general
on Saturday, packages can only be resubmitted to aur4.archlinux.org by
their current AUR maintainer (on aur.archlinux.org) for 4 weeks. That