Order of packages on REVU (was: Re: Frustration)

[Emmet Hikory]

Am 11/4/07, schreib Stefan Potyra:
> Am Freitag 02 November 2007 14:27:42 schrieb Jeffrey Ratcliffe:
> [..]
> > The order of the packages on REVU seems to be semi-random.
> [..]
>
> It's not semi-random, but rather mainly based on activity (iirc, number of
> comments, number of advocations play a role in the order). The formula to
> calculate the order of displayed packages however is quite obscure, and I'm
> happy to change it to something more reasonable. What do you think about
> using FIFO (oldest first)? Other suggestions?

    I'd like something a little more complex:

First:
    Oldest-first list of packages where there is at least one
advocation, and any comments after the advocation are by the uploader.

Second:
    Oldest-first list of packages where any comments since the last
upload are by the uploader.

Third:
    Oldest-first list of all remaining packages

    The reasoning is that the first batch is highest priority: likely
being packages that are ready to be sponsored into the archive.  The
second batch is next most important, likely being packages that seek a
first advocate, and need review.  The third batch is last, likely
representing rejections or requests for rework, and so not requiring
immediate attention.

    Tracking uploader comments vs. reviewer comments is important, and
uploaders often comment to explain special aspects of the package, or
other notes after a new upload, or after an advocation with comments
or questions.

-- 
Emmet HIKORY