Hi, On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 08:43:10AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > in Debian Med we have started to add publication information to the > tasks files.
Nice. However, at a quick glance, I only see "Please cite: " entries in the task overview page, no further references, did I overlook something? By the way, maybe it would be better and clearer to have that as "Cite as: " rather, to send a bit stronger message that citing might not be voluntary if you publish something (and might pre-empt complaints from upstreams, dunno). Apart from that, some more comments to the task overviews: 1. The screenshot thumbnails are unnecessarily small and the box they are in has a big margin (at least on my 1024x768 gecko browser); I guess that is a problem with screenshots.debian.net, but really - the thumbnails are useless. If they were twice as big, they would probably still fit into the free space and be useful. 2. I know it's difficult, but I think it would be worthwhile to simpify the version/arch table. E.g. I am not sure arch information is needed for all arches - maybe just scientifically interesting ones (i.e. mostly i386, powerpc, amd64, ia64) or for a number of specifically tagged packages where we think architecture information is actually important (e.g. openmpi/other mpi implementation etc.). In any case, I suggest to use aliases for the architectures, like "Intel/AMD 32bit", "Intel/AMD 64bit" and "Intel Itanium" or so. 3. Same goes for versions - maybe if the same version is available in stable and testing (or unstable), only mention stable; maybe use stable/testing/unstable (or even "Debian 4.0 (etch)", "Debian 5.0 (lenny)") instead of codenames (also note that codenames are sorted alphabetically right now - sid is before squeeze). Also, binNMUS are displayed seperately - maybe it makes even sense to just show the upstream version? 4. the java-script(?) pop-ups for tags and especially versions/arches are a bit in your face. I think having some extender-like facility which dynamically extends the package's entry and displays the information. Following-up on the last though on 3. - did you consider having a user-view and seperate developer-view? The former could be simpler and only show information a user might want (mainstream architectures, upstream versions, etc.); whereas the developer view would show detailed version information to diagnose e.g. missing or failed builds. Sorry for this rather uncoherent brain dump... Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
