Re: Packages descriptions review

[Clément Stenac <zorglub@diwi.org>]

-qa crosspost removed

> 1) It seems that only two people can comment on an entry. If I see a
> problem that two other people have missed, I can't point it out.
Agreed. I'm going to add a freetext field in the packages detail page
for additional comments and a flag on the list page indicating whether
more comments are available.

> 2) It looks like I can edit other people's observations, possibly by
> accident (by hitting submit after them). Fix (1) and this should go
> away, too.
I didn't actually want to bother setting up a real rights system, and I
think we can trust the few people that will help not to be abusive. As
for the accident, yes, that's a possible risk, the best solution is to
carefully coordinate the work through the wiki. I don't expect dozens of
people anyway :)

I also added a few safeguards: reviewers must be different, you can't
fill review2 if review1 isn't filled.

> 3) It doesn't look like there is a way to comment on the "current
> proposal", only on the original description (and only for two people;
> see above).
Ok, I'll add that

> 4) I notice tags are part of the description shown. Do you intend to
> review the tags as well? This should be clarified on the wiki. If the
> answer is "yes", a link to tags documentation needs to be added.
This was actually a side effect of the filling script. I had thought it
might be a good idea to review tags at the same time, but I think it's
too early for a tags review. The maintainers haven't had a chance to tag
their packages themselves.

> 5) The things to look for needs some work. For example, it needs
> something like "description fails to show how the package fits in with
> related pacakges" (e.g., foo-pgsql vs. foo-mysql. Or many others)
Fixed, feel free to edit.

> PS: Having "Improper english" as a thing to look out for on the Wiki
> page was rather bad looking. Fixed. Same with the incomplete list at the
> top.
Hehe, that's why I said native english speakers would be greatly appreciated and why 
several people should review the texts.

Thanks for your feedback,

-- 
Clément