Re: Cleaning up Savannah (a bit)

[Meskauskas Audrius]

I actually do not think that the original savannah task and bug lists are
really so bad. The worst thing with them is that on the first visit they
sort by date in the opposite order, giving the oldest, obsolete
additions first. This causes a terrible first impression, the whole
project looks like dead long time ago. I think this is just an old bug
that nobody have ever fixed.

However they have and enforce the certain structure
(importance, progress, status, category), providing web forms for that.
They also provide search by rather complicated query.
They can give us the "live" web links that display pages, returned
in response to submitting some in advanve-prepared query. They provide
a simple way to post follow ups, to attach the arbitrary files (critical
feature for bug reports). Sun links to the bug report page from the
generated documentation, probably we could also think about
something similar.

In this way they may have an advantage against the "free text"
web pages that I think are better suitable for less structured topics
like development decissions, news, documentation, implementation
status and so on.

The link
http://savannah.gnu.org/task/?group=classpath&order=planned_close_date
gives the task list, sorted in a normal order (most recent first), probably
we could use this as workaround?

As one of the possible solutions I suggest to move all tasks that
should have been finished more than half a year ago, into a single 
"obsolete"
category and do not display this category on the first visit. Bugs should
be sorted by priority, most sever bugs first (there is also a hyperlink
that gives them in that order). Also, it would help to divide bugs into
programming related and non programming related (build, documenation,
etc).

Audrius