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

Bug#604048: marked as done (www.debian.org: Count of 'days in preparation' is wrong on wnpp page)

Your message dated Sat, 23 Apr 2011 00:50:30 -0400
with message-id <9f6f881eb49fb03d627a88daee49e343.squirrel@webmail.tilapin.org>
and subject line [Fwd: Re: Bug#505254: www.debian.org: Ability to sort RFP/ITP pages by age]
has caused the Debian Bug report #604048,
regarding www.debian.org: Count of 'days in preparation' is wrong on wnpp page
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

604048: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=604048
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: www.debian.org
Severity: normal


I work on a package since 82 days but on wnpp page I can see '201 days in

I talk about this package. [1]

How I get 82 ?
* ITP of the package was annonced on 'Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:12:05 GMT'
* Today it's Fri, 19 Nov 2010
=> difference is 2 month and 21 days

So I think this package is 'in preparation' since 82 days not 201 days.

Best regards,


[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=579859

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
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



--- End Message ---

Reply to: