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

Bug#152609: marked as done (www.debian.org: List of requested packages should be sorted by age as well as alphabetically)

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

152609: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=152609
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: www.debian.org
Version: N/A; reported 2002-07-11
Severity: wishlist


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

-- 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 ---
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



Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)


--- End Message ---

Reply to: