Hello Flavio, I have two questions on this thread:
1) I have just written my review on training-guides repository : https://review.openstack.org/#/c/402607/1 .Then would you revise your initialized patchset by yourself? Or Your intention would be to discuss more on each repository team members and revise patch(es) by themselves?
2) Can I18n team (openstack/i18n and openstack/i18n-specs) have such image tag? :)
With many thanks, /Ian Flavio Percoco wrote on 11/25/2016 11:00 PM:
On 25/11/16 13:46 +0000, Amrith Kumar wrote:Flavio,I see a number of patches[1] which have been landed on this project but I find that at least the ones that were landed for Trove, and a random sampling ofthe others all to be different from what you proposed below[2] in one important aspect.In [2] you proposed a structure where the title of the document; or the first, and most prominent heading, would be the existing heading of the document, andthe tags would be below that. In [2] for example, that was: "kombu - Messaging library for Python" and the tags would be in smaller font below that.Hey Amrith,One reason it's different from Kombu is because Kombu uses shields as a backend for this SVGs, whereas we don't. We generate the badges ourselves[0], whichprobably ended up in some differences.The other main difference in the kombu case, there are multiple images in the README, wherease in our case there's one SVG containing multiple svgs. Themotivation behind this is being able to update the badges without sending patches to projects everytime the governance repo is modified.This layout and format can of couse be modified, the font size and family can bechanged, etc. See[1].What I see in [3] the patch for Trove and the proposed example [4] is:"Team and repository tags" as the first, and most conspicuous header, and theheader "Trove" below that.In some cases the second header is the same font as the "Team and repositorytags" header.I explained this a bit here[2]. The reason for prepending these secion to theREADME's instead of finding a good place in it is that READMEs throughoutOpenStack are quite different from each other and putting this at the top helpedin making the process of adding the badges simpler.I think this change (these 124 changes) as proposed are not consistent with the proposal you made below, and certainly seem to be less suitable than that proposal. The end product for the four trove repositories [4], [5], [6], and[7]I think we should have a discussion on the ML whether we feel that this newstructure is the appropriate one, and before some projects approve these changes and others don't that these be all marked WF-1.I honestly don't think the current proposal is bad, it's different from Kombu for the reasons I mentioned above but it can be improved. Not that improving the badges and their layout doesn't require submitting these patches again. It'll beenough to modify the governance repo that generates these images. Hope this helps, Flavio[0] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/governance/tree/doc/source/_exts/badges.py[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/399278/[2] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-November/107969.htmlThanks, -amrith [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:project-badges [2] https://github.com/celery/kombu/blob/master/README.rst [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/402547/ [4] https://gist.github.com/anonymous/4ccf1cc6e531bb50e78cb4d64dfe1065 [5] https://gist.github.com/1f38def1c65c733b7e4cec3d07399e99 [6] https://gist.github.com/2f1c6e9b800db6d4a49d46f5b0623c1d [7] https://gist.github.com/9e9e2e2ba4ecfdece7827082114f8258-----Original Message----- From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:fla...@redhat.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 7:07 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Exposing project team's metadata inREADME files On 12/10/16 11:01 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: >Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2016-10-12 14:50:03 +0200: >> Greetings, >> >> One of the common complains about the existing project organization >> in the big tent is that it's difficult to wrap our heads around the>> many projects there are, their current state (in/out the big tent), theirtags, etc. >> >> This information is available on the governance website[0]. Each >> official project team has a page there containing the information >> related to the deliverables managed by that team. Unfortunately, I >> don't think this page is checked often enough and I believe it's not >> known by everyone. >> >> In the hope that we can make this information clearer to people >> browsing the many repos (most likely on github), I'd like to propose >> that we include the information of each deliverable in the readme >> file. This information would be rendered along with the rest of the>> readme (at least on Github, which might not be our main repo but it's theplace most humans go to to check our projects). >> >> Rather than duplicating this information, I'd like to find a way to >> just "include it" in the Readme file. As far as showing the >> "official" badge goes, I believe it'd be quite simple. We can do it >> the same way CI tags are exposed when using travis (just include an>> image). As for the rest of the tags, it might require some extra hacking.>> >> So, before I start digging more into this, I wanted to get other >> opinions/ideas on this topic and how we can make this information>> more evident to the rest of the community (and people not as familiarwith our processes as some of us are). >> >> Thanks in advance, >> Flavio >> >> [0] http://governance.openstack.org/reference/projects/index.html >> > >Is your proposal that a tag like release:cycle-with-milestones would >result in a badge being added when the README.rst is rendered on >github.com? Would that work for git.openstack.org, too?I don't think it'd work for git.openstack.org because it doesn't render theREADME's[0] like github does. One thing I'd like to avoid is for thisinformation to result in new changes to the README file everytime the tags are updated because I'd like for this information to not be duplicated andtomake it clear that this information is not meant to be updated manually.Here's[1] an example of what it would look like (or kinda). [0] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/glance/tree/README.rst [1] https://github.com/celery/kombu/blob/master/README.rst >I agree that the governance site is not the best place to put the info >to make it discoverable. Do users look first at the source repository, >or at some other documentation?The feedback* I've gotten is that users normally look at repos first andthey go from there to docs (which are normally linked in the README file).* Neither based on a survey nor on any empirical research. This is based onhallway talks. Flavio -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco__________________________________________________________________________OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribehttp://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
