Hi Flavio, These tags don't seem to be rendering/laying out well for octavia: https://github.com/openstack/octavia/blob/master/README.rst
Any pointers to get this corrected or is this part of the backend rendering work you mentioned in the keystone message above? Michael On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Flavio Percoco <fla...@redhat.com> wrote: > 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 >> of >> the 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, >> and >> the 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. > > > Hi, > > Some fixes landed yesterday to improve the badges layout. For those > interested, > here's an example of what it looks like now: > > https://github.com/openstack/keystone > > Basically, the horizontal padding was reduced to the minimum needed and the > badges width was set to the total width of the image. > > Hope this helps, > Flavio > > >> 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 >> the >> header "Trove" below that. >> >> In some cases the second header is the same font as the "Team and >> repository >> tags" header. >> >> 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 >> new >> structure is the appropriate one, and before some projects approve these >> changes and others don't that these be all marked WF-1. >> >> Thanks, >> >> -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 >>> in >>> README 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), >>> >> their >>> tags, 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 >>> >> the >>> place 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 familiar >>> with 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 >>> the >>> README's[0] like github does. One thing I'd like to avoid is for this >>> information 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 >>> and >>> to >>> make 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 and >>> they >>> 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 >>> on >>> hallway talks. >>> >>> Flavio >>> >>> -- >>> @flaper87 >>> Flavio Percoco > > > > >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > -- > @flaper87 > Flavio Percoco > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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