Blocker Bug Tracking Draft Page

[Tim Flink]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 04:26:56 -0400 (EDT)
Kamil Paral <kparal at redhat.com> wrote:

> > I've done some UI tweaking and have another demo up at:
> > 
> > http://tflink.fedorapeople.org/blockerbugs/jquerytest/blocker_demo.html
> > 
> > The colors are off, the default sort order isn't quite right and I'm
> > not all that thrilled with the banner image but I'm looking for
> > feedback on the basic layout and functionality.
> > 
> >  - Are the tabs a good idea?
> 
> I'd put it on a single page, because otherwise I have to navigate
> with a mouse to have a full overview what's going on. Scrolling or
> pressing PageDown is easier.

OK, that's pretty much what I was going back and forth about - whether
the clean separation of proposed/accepted blockers/NTH was worth the
annoyance of having to click more and not having everything on the same
page.

> Accepted first, proposed second.

I had been planning to keep the order as:
 - Accepted Blockers
 - Proposed Blockers
 - Accepted NTH
 - Proposed NTH

In my mind, the difference between blocker and NTH is more important
than proposed/accepted but I'm not incredibly attached to that
ordering. Any other thoughts on what order the bug lists should be in?

> >  - Is there any other information that should be added?
> 
> Can you highlight those items that are new in any of the categories
> in the last 24 hours?

There is a limit to what I can realistically do with static html + js
but I can think of two ways to do that off hand. I'll see what I can
come up with that's realistic.

> Also, can you put MODIFIED and ON_QA states in bold?

Yeah, that would be easy. I'm wondering if there would be value in
doing more color coding and/or status highlighting than that, though

Now that you mention it, I wonder if there would be value in having a
related page with a list of blockers/nth that need testing (based on
status - whatever is ON_QA). I like the idea and the code would be
straightforward but I'm not sure if the bug statuses correlate enough
with what actually needs testing for that list to make sense.

Tim
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20120702/2e1c50e1/attachment.sig>