Pulsar Edit
Package Owner #107
-
|
TLDR
( Now focusing only on
Questions
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
Replies: 1 comment 5 replies
-
|
So this is a discussion we had previously, and with our currently planned solution, we are still open to discussion. But as it stands now here is the answer we have currently agreed on. So ideally we wouldn't be transferring ownership of packages themselves. Because that opens a whole can of worms where someone could say they want ownership of a package, but then later if the maintainer were to come back and want it, or if someone else were to say they want ownership of the package so on and so forth. So we would hope to never manually be transferring ownership. Now the simplest solution here would be to publish the package under a new name, and we are hoping to soon support extra flags on packages, to where if you inform us that your new package under whatever name is the updated and maintained fork of an already existing package, then we could inform the user that the old package is no longer updated, and to use yours instead. The same way that NPM will commonly do when installing older packages. Now the interesting thing here is it's still essentially the same package, so I would be interested honestly if the backend would figure it out when publishing a new version. There is baked in support for trying to work around a package rename, but I can't say with any certainty that it would successfully handle a request when being published by a new author, on a different repo. So we could discuss further but I personally feel the right answer is to publish a brand new package under a new name, and once supported we could add a flag to it. As for your question on the permissions of the PAT token, all that's recommended to enable is the following:
You could assign more, but that's all that the backend will use. This is something I thought was in the documentation linked from the signup page, but I'll double check and see what I can do to add it there. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thank you for the answer. In regards to linking to a new fork, I don't see it as a viable solution Just linking to a new fork doesn't cut it since:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@ElectronicsArchiver I do get what you mean that it may not be the best solution. But you are right if we do support it, it has to be done by the original owner. Since otherwise it's just a managerial and security headache. To be perfectly honest our integration when it comes to GitHub and especially confirming ownership of packages and repositories is still something that's being worked on nearly everyday. So I'll add this item onto the package backend feature request Project Board and I'd recommend you keep an eye on it there, but this may be a feature that takes some time to implement. The hardest thing about this, is because the backend doesn't store any credentials of a user it can sometimes be difficult to confirm ownership of a package when it's data has changed, such as the GitHub repo name and/or ORG. Since for example in this case, if the package was originally published from an org, anyone within the org (or with read and write access really) would be able to publish package versions for the package. But in this case, it's now the question of verifying that someone else can take ownership of a package who's Author has essentially changed, which in that case you can see how it becomes much more difficult to confirm everything. But like I said, I'll add it to our feature requests and see what we can do. Although in the short term if you want this package published right now it may be best to publish under a new name, and if wanted could even ask the original author to delete their package. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Thanks for adding it to the project board. Btw, do you have a way to publish ( small ) If not, why not just append a list at the end |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Okay wait, I originally started typing a whole bunch before I got what you mean. Are you referring to similar how we have on Discord the Hmm, but you are right it should be agnostic in terms of what platform others use to get ahold of those updates. I almost wonder if a Discord bot could take everything we put in that Discord channel and generate an RSS feed. Then we could plug it into the website, or users could just add it to whatever RSS Feed Reader they prefer, and that seems like the most agnostic way to do it while still being a proper platform. Since GitHub feels much more long form to me at least for those small 1 sentence updates. The sort of thing I'd personally rather see buried in a ChangeLog somewhere other than be displayed prominently But I actually do like this idea, when I'm off work I'll try and see what the team thinks |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I don't have any experience with RSS feeds, but it sounds good. What I was thinking of was a simple yaml file with 'news' in it I'm actually working on that ( because I felt like it ), |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
So this is a discussion we had previously, and with our currently planned solution, we are still open to discussion. But as it stands now here is the answer we have currently agreed on.
So ideally we wouldn't be transferring ownership of packages themselves. Because that opens a whole can of worms where someone could say they want ownership of a package, but then later if the maintainer were to come back and want it, or if someone else were to say they want ownership of the package so on and so forth. So we would hope to never manually be transferring ownership.
Now the simplest solution here would be to publish the package under a new name, and we are hoping to soon support extra flags o…