Your message dated Fri, 22 Apr 2011 23:04:48 -0400 with message-id <[🔎] 4DB241D0.8080308@tilapin.org> and subject line Re: Bug#505254: www.debian.org: Ability to sort RFP/ITP pages by age has caused the Debian Bug report #152609, regarding www.debian.org: List of requested packages should be sorted by age as well as alphabetically to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org immediately.) -- 152609: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=152609 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
- To: "Debian Bug Tracking System" <submit@bugs.debian.org>
- Subject: www.debian.org: List of requested packages should be sorted by age as well as alphabetically
- From: "Andrew Ferrier" <andrew@new-destiny.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 11:20:13 +0100
- Message-id: <E17Sb3V-00016x-00@ella.aferrier>
Package: www.debian.org Version: N/A; reported 2002-07-11 Severity: wishlist http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/requested This page should really have an age-sorted version as well as an alphabetically-sorted version; this would help prospective packagers pick recent software that there was a current demand for. -- System Information: Debian Release: 3.0 Architecture: i386 Kernel: Linux laura 2.4.18 #1 Thu Jun 27 18:43:52 BST 2002 i686 Locale: LANG=en_UK, LC_CTYPE=en_UK (ignored: LC_ALL set)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- To: Alexander Tait Brotman <atbrotman@yahoo.com>, 505254-done@bugs.debian.org, Debian L10n English <debian-l10n-english@lists.debian.org>, 152609-done@bugs.debian.org, The Debian Web site <debian-www@lists.debian.org>
- Subject: Re: Bug#505254: www.debian.org: Ability to sort RFP/ITP pages by age
- From: David Prévot <david@tilapin.org>
- Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 23:04:48 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] 4DB241D0.8080308@tilapin.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20110422142039.GA32458@xibalba.demon.co.uk>
- References: <20081111032122.4680.10327.reportbug@localhost.localdomain> <[🔎] 201104212227.10936.david@tilapin.org> <[🔎] 20110422084206.GA23102@xibalba.demon.co.uk> <[🔎] 4DB18A4B.6080306@altern.org> <[🔎] 20110422142039.GA32458@xibalba.demon.co.uk>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Le 22/04/2011 10:20, Justin B Rye a écrit : > David Prévot wrote: >> Actually I intended to keep the first form too (and use the second form >> if and only if the number of day in preparation is at least two and the >> number of day in activity is different): >>>> - <package: description>, in preparation since today. >>>> - <package: description>, in preparation since yesterday. > > Oh, well, I suppose as long as the readers are looking for information > instead of borderline-arguable nits to pick it'll be fine... Sure, the main goal is to have the ability to spot if WNPP are being worked on. If the bug has been reported yesterday, and someone updated it today, we can claim without hurting anyone (in a page that claims to be updated daily) that it is worked on since yesterday without further notice. The interesting part is to be able to spot that someone did update a bug report two weeks ago, even if the bug has initially been reported five years ago. > as long > as your algorithm never gets confused by timezones and starts claiming > "since tomorrow". ;-). “tomorrow” is not part of the usable strings, and people took care before me to provide a reliable way to count those days, I didn't reinvent the wheel here. >> I may push a link on *organized by age* >> and *organized by activity* instead of offering many lines: >> >> - - %s packages being worked on, organized by age or organized by activity > > Or > - - %s packages being worked on, organized [by age] or [by activity] Indeed better, thanks Regards David -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJNskHOAAoJELgqIXr9/gnyXckQALpuqrqLrxxkM8hw5w+C11rL HnIAwmlPhkbNON6Ac4XDn4jvjEea/OL+fdCh/LjO55gc0ncjHITx79ubEcoEaNB7 bLPCIc6PRl3SPS7O2UTJzfHZltsP5Ra/1hTdhvtMSdJwh4JdsB/mUfQ6m3kiHEIU Se59tUssIzek5gLrGwnTvs5GGKJPIAqD0OltN0XDlojJxd1rUKqofPTlJGMRHhLA QSkv8gOI9HCe8v3p7GjBXH6goJiGEWjZtbgrRnjhZXkEuO3EtP1JWR1i499KQ3X/ gqGBesXrFaicKFwVpeRFz4/xL8vQydJ3o28k9j7uQMd9oKRZGUzaS3hjefXOYYuo 36QSfx3nZ4VAdBaR45uh+/ZCTjzC+fF8Hf+rhGiF9F5Ax19PWl0jfd/JA3tQb8SJ pnjRrvtdv5Z1TLadgyBcfmmBrPR8Z8LbqOmiXMqpsJMvSbZo9bE1fJrnX4pZC03P 2vqROXa9bZWUIGep89VzPCZopV2PXxUg1aIk92zATxH1D/t0v1TuYSyUuI8To6x4 bZE+Lxj+eWm4SGV/Bfust7nwbsCDZpic74ZXU2npeYxmepLriXr25ijLcJB3PWU2 gNCy0/fqj0nUgI7EDscosvnOew+CenZrbii0LwrCjxDTwg9bhrKdatSzPBEv/qyj sMEH0+Wj7LiTw+Wc4r50 =+eLv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--- End Message ---