>> 3. The issue and affairs related to which upstream software is >> included and which PKGBUILD git repo is selected, goes to issues >> section of aur-meta. For packaging specific problems, it goes to the >> AUR package git repo. > > Overcomplicated, and involves even more places to check for issues. > Comment section is good enough for this. > > It becomes too many points of failure and too much mental overhead, > juggling issues, comments, emails... its too much... and is why if I do > choose to maintain packages again, I would 100% exclusively keep it to > the AUR and not push it elsewhere, so many people recommend that > workflow but it simply doesn't work. > Use AUR comment section, if there is an issue, ask for intervention > from staff, or if they do not respond, submit an orphan request. > > Systems for this are already in place, don't see the problem you are > trying to solve Issues are simply a more organized way to write comments; they won’t co-exist. It can be weird to follow multiple threads at once and get a lot of notifications when you only want to follow your thread. I’ve also seen people abuse/misuse comments partly due to its name (“comments”). Issues offer more control of notifications and have an actual Ping feature.
