← Back to team overview

launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

Re: RFC: Bug page 3.0 redesign


2009/9/9 Jonathan Lange <jml@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> I think Martin is referring to the grey & white barber shop stripes on
> the left border of the page. They aren't visible in your mockup.

I was.

>>> Similarly "Nominate for release" is misnamed; it should be "request
>>> fix in series", and "also affects distribution" perhaps likewise.
>> Again, I'm not convinced that the phrase you are suggesting is
>> necessarily better. I'm not a heavy user, and I know how it works, so
>> I may be the wrong person to judge this. I definitely want to hear
>> more opinions about this.
> Me too. Speak up distro folk!

Maybe we need to circulate this to some people specifically, or ask in
that bug I linked.

> I agree, a portlet probably won't work.
> OTOH, Martin is right that the branch links are easily lost between
> the description and the comments.
> Speaking of which, have we tried putting tags above the description?
> I'm not 100% convinced it's better, but would be interested to
> compare.

Or even how about under the title?  They're almost similar
information: a one-line summary of the bug - but in a more
machine-readable form.

>>> Your sample data shows the somewhat annoying bug that status changes
>>> are now fragmented from the text that describes them.  I understand if
>>> you want to tackle that separately though.
>> I don't think I understand what you mean by that.
> I think Martin means that if I go to a bug, and say, "We aren't going
> to fix this because it would take four years to fix and only make life
> better for one user", mark the status as "Wont Fix" and then hit
> submit (or do the same via email), then the "status change" will be
> visually separated from the comment, even though the are the one
> conceptual change.

Right, and (this is a separate bug) it seems a bit easy at the moment
to have this generate two emails, so the user gets "won't fix", thinks
"oh how rude!" and only later gets the explanation why.  Similarly for

>>> And then along with the date originally reported it would be a bit
>>> interesting to show the relative date last touched ("3 days ago" or
>>> "1/2/09") - this can be inferred from the activity log but it would
>>> mesh with people valuing the recently-changed-bugs list.
>> Another nice idea. The challenge is to make it easy to understand
>> which date is which. Let's give it a try.
> We do this on branches. Guh. "Created on <foo> by <bar>, last modified
> on <baz> by <qux>"
> We used to do this on branches. I'm a little bit disappointed that it went away.

This may be because the 'last modified' referred to the last time the
metadata was modified, not counting the branch itself, which was poor
because generally branches have little interesting metadata beyond
their revisions.  I'm not sure we had that specific problem, but as
I'm sure you recall we had several like it - like the
owner/author/registrant split.

>>> The dates sometimes look weird at the moment, because it says "3
>>> seconds ago" which is  factually wrong by the time the page arrives in
>>> my browser.  I think Launchpad needs some other representation of time
>>> which goes "12:20 today", "3:30 yesterday", "29/2/2000".  Soyuz I
>>> think recently did something similar.
>> I like that idea. Pretty low-priority, as far as I'm concerned, but if
>> there's already a better implementation in Soyuz (or another module)
>> we should be consistent and use that across Launchpad.
> As far as I'm aware, no other app in Launchpad has a better date
> display. I believe that we are already consistent in our use of date
> time formatters, as described in:
>    https://dev.launchpad.net/DatetimeUsageGuide
> There are a couple of known bugs in the formatter (it maxes out at
> "weeks", iirc). Fixing them would be pretty easy, I think.

I don't know if the feedback I'm giving relates to malone's choice of
formatter or the implementation of that formatter.  I know a lot of
tweaking is possible and I'm not asking for that, but I do think
saying "%d seconds ago" in a web page is normally inappropriate.

We could be a bit South African and say "just now". :-)

> Wuu.
> That's a long email. Thanks so much for taking the time to read it :)

Yes, thanks.  I really like and am impressed by where Malone's going recently.

Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>

Follow ups