ignoring "group is not maintainer"

[Martín Ferrari]

Hi,

2010/2/27 Joachim Breitner <nomeata at debian.org>:

> this is desired, we do some „service hosting“ for packages that are
> officially  not team maintained (such as darcs).

Ack. But for Lucas probably was not desired.

>> In the templates should be no logic (ideally), at least not for
>> classification. Please point me out where you have seen some
>> clasification logic on it, it should not be there.
>
> I might be misunderstanding the code, but this part of
> templates/by_category seems to be interacting with the perl code:
>
> <table id="main_table">
>    [% INCLUDE section data=data list=with_rc_bugs name="with_rc_bugs"

Well, is interacting as assuming some stuff. But there's no logic there.

> at least if one wants the user’s assumptions fulfilled that a package
> appears in the first visible list, and one changes some categorizations,
> then one has to make sure this matches.

Uhm, making a package appear on the first category is not something
that's there in the logic, it is not really suppoprted. This part is
purely presentation, *after* the categorisation has been done. What it
could be done is to have a 'top' category where you could choose your
criteria of most urgent packages and that will be first. But nothing
in the code knows about position in the html file

> But I wonder if it were not cleaner if the list of categories is defined
> in pet.cgi, where they are filled. Maybe not separate lists, but rather
> a list of category names with entries. This would also remove the
> additional duplication here at pet.cgi:

That is a interesting idea. But the biggest issue remains: how to make
the categorisation configurable, without using perl as config (as it
is now)?
If you make the list configurable, you need to make all of it configurable..

-- 
Martín Ferrari