[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#505254: www.debian.org: Ability to sort RFP/ITP pages by age



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Le 22/04/2011 04:42, Justin B Rye a écrit :

>> I'd propose something like:
>> - <package: description>, %s days in preparation, last activity today.
>> - <package: description>, %s days in preparation, last activity yesterday.
>> - <package: description>, %s days in preparation, last activity %s days ago.
> 
> An improvement on "since today"... but do you need to make that "%s
> day(s) in preparation"?

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.

See for example my WIP test pages:
http://www.tilapin.org/debian/devel/wnpp/
http://www.tilapin.org/debian/devel/wnpp/being_packaged_byactivity

What would you suggest to replace the “since today” form?

>> Also, for the index, I hope the following would be fine:
>> - %s packages being worked on, by age
>> - %s packages being worked on, by last activity
> 
> Maybe ", organi[sz]ed by", just to get further away from the old jokes
> about "a list of people broken down by sex and age"...

Let's go with “organized” then, this form seems a bit more used than the
other on the website (almost 59%, well I guess that we could try and
push some consistency in that regard, but it will be in another thread).

Second though, in order to avoid a fair amount of lines linking to the
various new pages being offered, 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

Regards

David

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=ul/s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: