Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> Backing up for a moment to ten thousand feet here, I posted a link to
> this web app on May 26th. I received several comments on it, all of
> them positive, including some constructive feedback from you which I
> took to heart. It is now July 1st, and I am trying very hard to get
> ready for the next CommitFest, which I have agreed to manage. So I
> need to determine whether there is some finite number of changes of
> manageable size that I can make to get this to a state where we can
> use it, or whether I should give up hope now and go back to the wiki.
I think it's probably fixable, if you've got some time to put into it
between now and the 15th. What's being griped about is user interface
details, and it's not surprising that you as the author didn't see
these things the same way a new user would. From what I've been able to
see, the underlying functionality is mostly there, but it needs some
usability/presentation tweaking.
> I accept the need for and am willing to make the following changes:
> - Changing the patch comment field from type text to type textarea and
> integrating it into the patch view page to provide context.
> - Adding a note to the effect that the message ID is optional.
> - Adding stable links with mnemonic names for the open, in progress,
> and most recently closed commitfests.
> With respect to the issue of the page URLs, I'm very unconvinced of
> the value of making a change.
Given your item 3 above, I think we can live with the URLs otherwise.
One other thing I was noticing is that the items for a particular patch
seem to be listed in reverse date order. Personally I find this strange
and would prefer newest-at-the-bottom --- in particular, having the
patch itself at the bottom doesn't seem especially usable. We might
need to take a vote on that though, since I suppose some people like
newest-at-the-top.
regards, tom lane