>Not sure if this is still relevant - I'll drop my thoughts nonetheless. > > >I think a (web) dashboard *and* email reports would be useful. I >personally don't care very much about a RSS feed, but generating it >wouldn't be that hard either. > > >Email reports are mostly useful if they're maintainer-specific. I don't >think it's useful to send out emails for every package with never >versions available. > >Another thing to keep in mind are packages with multiple maintainers: >You should make sure that not both (or more) start working on the same >update. For email notification, putting all maintainers in the CC field >makes such coordination pretty easy. > >It would also be nice to send just one mail for multiple packages, if >the maintainer list is the same for all. > > >The last time the data was updates on the main page would be helpful >too.
I looked at the web dashboard… I don't understand why "Outdated" flag gets set even if I untick it. Did I get it right that "vulnerable" flag is not shown in the list (it can only be used as a filter now)? Are URLs stable (maybe modulo domain name)? I wonder if it is time for me to start writing a console client already. Can coverage by Other Means be declared somehow? I have working updaters for some listed-as-uncovered packagers… There are packages with separated major versions. Should we mark this with a special meta attribute somehow? Because automake110x is not going to be major-updated to 1.14 anyway. I.e. this could be a flag «only minor updates». Could be useful to prevent human misunderstanding, too. _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
