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