harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [doc][website] finalizing changes to nav pane
Date Thu, 25 Jan 2007 04:20:01 GMT

On Jan 22, 2007, at 7:31 AM, Morozova, Nadezhda wrote:

> Hi, about
>> Just wondering.  I thought we were having a discussion about that
>> stuff...
>
> I double-checked the thread, seems like no more open navbar related
> issues remain. The recent emails mostly concern restructuring of  
> project
> guidelines page. For example, the question where to place  
> description of
> voting and types of action items is still open, and a potential
> extension of the Committers page with definition of committers and  
> other
> project roles is under discussion.

I have an idea... how about a "Project Guidelines" page? :)

geir

>
>
> Cheers,
> Nadya
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:geir@pobox.com]
>> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 1:37 AM
>> To: dev@harmony.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [doc][website] finalizing changes to nav pane
>>
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2007, at 4:57 PM, Morozova, Nadezhda wrote:
>>
>>> Is there anything wrong with what I did?
>>> I can revert the change if there are opponents. I really don't mean
> to
>>> be too pushy or anything. It's just that we seem to have discussed
> the
>>> nav pane changes, and the model was posted on the sandbox. I
> apologize
>>> if this was not too elegant :)
>>>
>>
>> Just wondering.  I thought we were having a discussion about that
>> stuff...
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Nadya
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Geir Magnusson Jr. [mailto:geir@pobox.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 12:25 AM
>>>> To: dev@harmony.apache.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [doc][website] finalizing changes to nav pane
>>>>
>>>> Where did governance go?
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 18, 2007, at 12:28 PM, Morozova, Nadezhda wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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