Sam Ruby wrote on 4/27/17 3:19 PM: > On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 2:14 PM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> But note that this code is still in beta and may well break again. If >> it does, just try again in an hour or two. > > +1 > > When I have a spare minute, I would like move away from site check > being a spreadsheet. I'd like the front page to be a high level > summary. It still will be a table with rows and columns, but instead > of details, it will have smiley faces or perhaps green checkmarks (and > frown faces and red x's too). And when you click on a row, you can > get more details. Those details may include things like multiple > results for a given check, something that is harder to represent in > the current page.
+1. Perhaps you can create a new /check/sites.cgi to deploy, and then after a week of deprecation we can nuke the existing URL. I'd also like to do: - Put an explanatory paragraph at the top explaining this is not definitive or a policy statement, and reminding people the results need human interpretation in some cases. Similar to the project health check tool - I don't want people (especially in public) to see red faces and freak out. - Explore a future analysis step that uses an officer-curated documented-exceptions.json that we can explicitly OK exceptions per-project. - Clearly tie each "check" directly (in the UI) to both: -- The actual policy requirement or best practice -- The code running that check -- A comment about accuracy of the automated check For example, License/Thanks/Sponsorship can have strongly automated checks for now, and even if we expand the policy (to allow projects to link to their own thanks page, that then prominently references the Apache thanks page, for example) the automated check will be quite accurate. Trademark attributions, on the other hand, can and will vary, and will still be 'acceptable'. I don't know if it will be worth writing a set of regexes to *thoroughly* vet any project's attributions. So there we might want "none | has something | good enough" as the automated status values. Not sure; I haven't thought through how to vet attributions in a rigorous way yet. - Shane -- - Shane https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/resources
