On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Curtis Hovey <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 07:52 -0600, Edwin Grubbs wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Martin Pool <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On 4 March 2010 16:32, Edwin Grubbs <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I would appreciate any feedback on this proposal for displaying users >> >> which services are unconfigured. This is very closely related to the >> >> proposal that Curtis emailed with the subject "RFC Changing >> >> permissions to allow contributors to set upstream information", but >> >> this document is only concerned with the project index page. >> >>
Thanks for this Edwin. Sorry I've taken so long to get to replying. A couple of quick thoughts: * we should just drop "Register a blueprint" from the "Get involved" box * what would clicking on the "Bugs" tab show for a project that has "Report a bug" crossed out on the "Get involved" box? similarly for Translations etc. >> >> The wiki page with screenshots can be viewed at: >> >> https://dev.launchpad.net/Registry/InvolvementPortletRefactor >> > >> > Hi, this sounds like a point of dissatisfaction at the moment and >> > something worth improving. >> > >> > I don't really understand the "one community/two communities" thing. To be honest, neither do I. > > I think the message is lost in the spec. Contributors need to see and > set information that are need to contribute to a project. Ubuntu needs > to know the upstream contact, bug tracker, the development branch (in > launchpad), and automatic translation imports enabled for that branch. > I'm a bit confused. From the emails, it sounds like the spec is trying to solve the problem telling Launchpad more about exactly how a project is not using Launchpad. (e.g. where should bugs be filed? Launchpad? Some other tracker?), but I don't really see any of that in the specification. > These are application issues that overlap somewhat with the Involvement > portlet. Edwin proposes that we extend it to ask for the missing > information. What we have *not* solved is how to show that > information...this information is not always used to create an artefact > in an application. > "The value is in the output"! I guess this problem remains unsolved? > Let me provide to examples that illustrate my frustration when I try to > help link Ubuntu to upstreams I think the problem will be very obvious. > Thanks, these are good examples! Can I encourage you to turn this into a LEP and add it to https://dev.launchpad.net/LEP (I've recovered from my blueprints insanity)? jml _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
