Ubuntu Package Status Pages

[Leann Ogasawara]

On Thu, 2008-09-04 at 11:23 +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote: 
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 02:47:19PM -0700, Leann Ogasawara wrote:
> > I just wanted to send out a note that the QA Team has released it's
> > first set of Package Status Pages for the wider audience to view:
> > 
> > http://status.qa.ubuntu.com/
> > 
> > Please let us know if you have any questions, criticisms, or just
> > overall feedback.  It's much appreciated.
> 
> It covers a relatively small subset of packages right now; what do you think
> the criteria should be for adding a new package?

We initially had a criteria that the package needed to have more than
100 bugs reported against it[1].  From that list we then informally
selected a subset of packages to generate status pages for.  It should
be trivial to add new packages.  I wouldn't be opposed to generating
status pages for all the packages that had over 100 bugs reported.
Additionally, I'd like to add packages which people request to be added.

> It seems to serve two purposes: one for the direct benefit of developers
> working on the package (in which case we should be willing to monitor
> additional packages to help them), the other as a means to help people get
> involved where they can make the most difference (in which case we should
> keep the set of packages on the front page small).

I definitely agree we should be willing to monitor packages upon
request.  However, I'm not sure if we should limit the number of
packages reflected on the front page.  I understand the need to steer
potential interested parties to packages that would benefit from extra
attention or where contributions would make more of an impact. However,
I think "hiding" packages from the front page does a disservice to those
hidden packages.  Since we do have the ability to group packages into
categories, I think it would be better to continue listing all the
packages we offer status pages for but additionally maybe provide a "Get
Involved" type of category.  We could then add an explanation of what
this category is intended for in the introductory paragraph (which we
probably need to beef up anyways).  

Thanks,
Leann

[1] http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~canonical-qa/canonical-qa-tracking/main/annotate/150?file_id=gt100bugpackages.txt-20080215170433-q6f6v4qipfatvqen-1