On 30/11/16 08:53 -0800, Michael Johnson wrote:
Hi Flavio,These tags don't seem to be rendering/laying out well for octavia: https://github.com/openstack/octavia/blob/master/README.rst Any pointers to get this corrected or is this part of the backend rendering work you mentioned in the keystone message above?
This was a bug in the SVG generation. The TL;DR is that the height and width were not being set for the root SVG. It should now be fixed. Note that github caches images locally. I wrote a script to purge the cache for all the badges that have landed already and I've added a cache control rules to the vhost serving these files now. Once this lands, I'll try purging the cache from GH again and hopefully it'll stop caching these images, which are not meant to be cached forever. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/404683/ If you need to purge the cache yourself, you can do it by issuing this command: $ curl -x PURGE $THE_GITHUB_IMAGE_URL Hope this helps, Flavio
Michael On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Flavio Percoco <fla...@redhat.com> wrote:On 25/11/16 13:46 +0000, Amrith Kumar wrote:Flavio, I see a number of patches[1] which have been landed on this project but I find that at least the ones that were landed for Trove, and a random sampling of the others all to be different from what you proposed below[2] in one important aspect. In [2] you proposed a structure where the title of the document; or the first, and most prominent heading, would be the existing heading of the document, and the tags would be below that. In [2] for example, that was: "kombu - Messaging library for Python" and the tags would be in smaller font below that.Hi, Some fixes landed yesterday to improve the badges layout. For those interested, here's an example of what it looks like now: https://github.com/openstack/keystone Basically, the horizontal padding was reduced to the minimum needed and the badges width was set to the total width of the image. Hope this helps, FlavioWhat I see in [3] the patch for Trove and the proposed example [4] is: "Team and repository tags" as the first, and most conspicuous header, and the header "Trove" below that. In some cases the second header is the same font as the "Team and repository tags" header. I think this change (these 124 changes) as proposed are not consistent with the proposal you made below, and certainly seem to be less suitable than that proposal. The end product for the four trove repositories [4], [5], [6], and [7] I think we should have a discussion on the ML whether we feel that this new structure is the appropriate one, and before some projects approve these changes and others don't that these be all marked WF-1. Thanks, -amrith [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:project-badges [2] https://github.com/celery/kombu/blob/master/README.rst [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/402547/ [4] https://gist.github.com/anonymous/4ccf1cc6e531bb50e78cb4d64dfe1065 [5] https://gist.github.com/1f38def1c65c733b7e4cec3d07399e99 [6] https://gist.github.com/2f1c6e9b800db6d4a49d46f5b0623c1d [7] https://gist.github.com/9e9e2e2ba4ecfdece7827082114f8258-----Original Message----- From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:fla...@redhat.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 7:07 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Exposing project team's metadata in README files On 12/10/16 11:01 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote: >Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2016-10-12 14:50:03 +0200: >> Greetings, >> >> One of the common complains about the existing project organization >> in the big tent is that it's difficult to wrap our heads around the >> many projects there are, their current state (in/out the big tent), >> their tags, etc. >> >> This information is available on the governance website[0]. Each >> official project team has a page there containing the information >> related to the deliverables managed by that team. Unfortunately, I >> don't think this page is checked often enough and I believe it's not >> known by everyone. >> >> In the hope that we can make this information clearer to people >> browsing the many repos (most likely on github), I'd like to propose >> that we include the information of each deliverable in the readme >> file. This information would be rendered along with the rest of the >> readme (at least on Github, which might not be our main repo but it's >> the place most humans go to to check our projects). >> >> Rather than duplicating this information, I'd like to find a way to >> just "include it" in the Readme file. As far as showing the >> "official" badge goes, I believe it'd be quite simple. We can do it >> the same way CI tags are exposed when using travis (just include an >> image). As for the rest of the tags, it might require some extra >> hacking. >> >> So, before I start digging more into this, I wanted to get other >> opinions/ideas on this topic and how we can make this information >> more evident to the rest of the community (and people not as familiar with our processes as some of us are). >> >> Thanks in advance, >> Flavio >> >> [0] http://governance.openstack.org/reference/projects/index.html >> > >Is your proposal that a tag like release:cycle-with-milestones would >result in a badge being added when the README.rst is rendered on >github.com? Would that work for git.openstack.org, too? I don't think it'd work for git.openstack.org because it doesn't render the README's[0] like github does. One thing I'd like to avoid is for this information to result in new changes to the README file everytime the tags are updated because I'd like for this information to not be duplicated and to make it clear that this information is not meant to be updated manually. Here's[1] an example of what it would look like (or kinda). [0] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/glance/tree/README.rst [1] https://github.com/celery/kombu/blob/master/README.rst >I agree that the governance site is not the best place to put the info >to make it discoverable. Do users look first at the source repository, >or at some other documentation? The feedback* I've gotten is that users normally look at repos first and they go from there to docs (which are normally linked in the README file). * Neither based on a survey nor on any empirical research. This is based on hallway talks. Flavio -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev-- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
-- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
