harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Morozova, Nadezhda" <nadezhda.moroz...@intel.com>
Subject RE: [doc][website] finalizing changes to nav pane
Date Thu, 18 Jan 2007 17:28:37 GMT
Changed nav pane has been committed. 
Can continue with cosmetic changes, but at least we have the changes
visible now. Phjuh.

Cheers, 
Nadya
 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:geir@pobox.com]
>Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 4:34 PM
>To: dev@harmony.apache.org
>Subject: Re: [doc][website] finalizing changes to nav pane
>
>
>On Jan 18, 2007, at 10:21 AM, Morozova, Nadezhda wrote:
>
>> Geir,
>> Thanks for a prompt reply. I'm glad you're on the OK side :)
>
>By that I mean that the current menu as currently on the site is ok...
>
>> Specifics per your concerns:
>> - ASF and Other Projects links - suggest that we add these to the
>> General list
>
>ASF already was in the general list.  Other Projects seems
>appropriate for a community section.
>
>> - wiki - we have mobile data there and I don't see what's wrong with
>> having it in the Documentation.
>
>I don't understand what you mean here.
>
>> - policy and guidelines: guidelines seems a gathering of multi-topic
>> info, suggest that we restructure it, several ideas below.
>
>I agree we should restructure it.
>
>>
>> <we're drifting toward issue (2 - some generic pages need
>> improvement) >
>>
>> Current project guidelines content and suggestions:
>> * People, Places, and Things: defines roles of committer,
contributor,
>> PMC (btw, is outdated) - can go into Who We Are (former committers'
>> page)
>
>Why?
>
>> * Status: tells wrong N/A info about status files - should be removed
>
>Yes
>
>> * Voting: describes +1/-1 votes etc - can go into Policy or into
>> Resolution guidelines
>
>No - contribution policy is something very special and specific to
>this project, something no other ASF project has.  I think that
>mixing it with canonical ASF project governance concepts is wrong.
>
>> * Types of action items: defines types of issues by severity and
>> specifics -  can fit naturally into Issue Resolution Guidelines
>> since it
>> describes issues that are further resolved :)
>
>Don't agree.   There are "big picture" issue governance, and detail
>governance.
>
>> * When to commit a change: gives generics on comits; is info for
>> committers only - can go into committers or Get Involved page or
issue
>> resolution since it explain issue resolution by patch commit
>
>could be
>
>> * Patch format: tips on how to create patches - fits into Get
>> Involved,
>> subheading How to Create and Submit A Patch or Enhancement.
>
>Yep
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Nadya
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:geir@pobox.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:55 PM
>>> To: dev@harmony.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: [doc][website] finalizing changes to nav pane
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 18, 2007, at 7:15 AM, Morozova, Nadezhda wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>> After a long-long pause, I'm restarting the thread about our
website
>>>> navigation menu and generic pages that require improvement. I hope
>>>> that
>>>> after the New Year all the emotions have boiled down and we can
move
>>>> over this quickly :)
>>>>
>>>> Key ideas that were gathered during the review of the sandbox
>>>> copy of
>>>> website:
>>>> (1) navigation menu is mostly ok though several improvements are
>>>> possible
>>>
>>> I'm in the "it's ok" camp. There are tweaks, but I still don't see
>>> where major change is needed.
>>>
>>>> (2) some generic pages require improvement because they're outdated
>> or
>>>> do not contain required info or don't deliver their main idea
>>>> clearly
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>>> (3) starting page does not give a clear idea of where our project
is
>> -
>>>> for a newcomer
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>>> Let's address these one by one. This letter is about (1) only. For
>> (2)
>>>> and (3), I'll send patches per page so that we don't miss anything
>>>> during the review.
>>>>
>>>> For the nav pane, I've a patch ready and waiting for your
>>>> approval to
>>>> commit. If you are strongly against a change suggested, let's
>>>> discuss
>>>> this. New version:
>>>>
>>>> General
>>>>     * Home
>>>>     * License
>>>>     * Contribution Policy
>>>>     * Downloads
>>>>     * FAQ
>>>> (removed references to ASF and project guidelines because the
>>>> Guidelines
>>>> actually have info on a number of very different topics, we can try
>>>> and
>>>> find a better place for them; having Policy *and* Guidelines
>>>> confuses
>>>> many people)
>>>
>>> We're an ASF project - please put the ASF link back.
>>>
>>> who has been confused by having "Contribution Policy" and "Project
>>> Guidelines"?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Community
>>>>     * Get Involved
>>>>     * Who we are
>>>>     * Mailing Lists
>>>>     * Bug Tracker
>>>> (removed Documentation (useless page), FAQ is above now, Wiki is in
>>>> docs
>>>> now, renamed Committers > Who we are (might not be the best name,
>>>> but
>>>> the page can be about PMC, committers and contributors, why only
the
>>>> committers?); moved JIRA to this list and renamed > Bug Tracker as
>> the
>>>> more generic term)
>>>
>>> Ok
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Development
>>>>     * Source Code
>>>>     * Getting Started (link for contributors)
>>>>     * Project Roadmap
>>>>     * Resolution Guideline
>>>> (removed How are we Doing (useless page), moved roadmap lower to
>>>> make
>>>> Source code stand out, removed Other projects (rarely used page),
>>>> added
>>>> Resolution guideline)
>>>
>>> We should keep the "Other Projects" and keep it up to date.  Why are
>>> Resolution Guidlines not in docs?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Documentation
>>>>     * Sitemap
>>>>     * Wiki
>>>>     * HDK
>>>>     * DRLVM
>>>>     * Class Libraries
>>>>     * Build-test Framework
>>>> (renamed Subcomponents > Documentation; added sitemap (the file
>> itself
>>>> is under development now), added wiki link here, added HDK page
>>>> (discussible, but hope to have a nice patch to describe our
>>>> deliverable
>>>> there); removed classlib status (outdated, we can have Wiki
instead)
>>>
>>> Uh, I'm not a big fan of having important info on the Wiki.  can we
>>> put that back?  I think it's important to have that kind of stuff in
>>> one place, here on the site.
>>>
>>> geir
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> nadya

Mime
View raw message