Add lifecycle information to the site

[HoverBaum]

As a result of dicussion in #19 and following up on #22 as well as some general dicussion lately this pull request aimes to add more information regarding what repostatus is about and which status is appropriet for a repo tot he website.

To help people choose a status for the repo and to help them understand what repo status wants to talk about a "lifecycle" page is added. This page puts statuses in relationshiops to each other. We think about a status as a state a repository is in and talk about when and how a state should change.

Needs dicussion:

• I am not sure calling this "Lifecycle" is the best thing we could come up with. Maybe this should be a more general page talking about the conceirns as outlined above. But so far thisw as my best idea for it.
• Input on the actual relations between states would be greatly appreciated. Please refer to the image above as well as the text in the pull request.

[jantman]

@HoverBaum thanks so much for this, and sorry for not responding sooner!

This looks really good to me. There are a few minor spelling issues which I commented on; I certainly do not mean that to be negative at all; I've always had major difficulties with other languages and honestly what you have here is as good as I'd expect from someone who lived their entire life writing in only English.

I think the only two things I'd ask are whether you could also include the source file for the diagram, just for completeness, and whether you could add in the new "Moved" status?

The relations in the diagram look fine to me. I don't see anything obviously "wrong" or missing.

As to "Lifecycle"... I can't think of a better word or name. That's probably what I would have chosen as well.

[HoverBaum]

@jantman thanks for your input. I also took way longer to get this going than I intended to.

I will include your spelling corrections. As for the source file I can happily include that.

As to the "moved" status I am unsure if it would be wise to include that in the lifecylce image above. As it would be a state and an arrow from every other state to the "moved" one. I feel like this would add unneded complexity and might obscure the other relationships instead of adding value. That said it might work to include it besides the other states without arrows from each one and indicate somehow that it can be reached from all states.

Currently I would favor to add a second image like this one:

[jantman]

Ok, thanks!

You're right, after thinking about it a bit more and reading your thoughts, I agree that Moved shouldn't be added in the lifecycle diagram. Maybe it should just be left out of the diagrams completely and only mentioned in the text... like you originally did!

[HoverBaum]

@jantman okay then I will go with that and I will see if I can maybe make that reasoning clearer for the site.

[HoverBaum]

@jantman finally picked this back up :)

Not sure how I can provide the image nicely. Used some online tooling for that that doesn't have any nice exports. Switched to an SVG though. Hope that people might be easier able to edit that.

[waldyrious]

In case it helps, here is the SVG source cleaned up by SVGOMG:

https://gist.github.com/waldyrious/a66171d50a2e86d088af59508a99f881

I'm sure some manual cleanup and IDs/comments could make the source even more hackable :)

[HoverBaum]

Thanks @waldyrious thats a little improvement I am happy to take 🙂

[jantman]

Sorry for the delay, but thanks so much for this! And to @waldyrious for cleaning up the SVG!

[jantman]

This is live now, thank you again so much!