search

ropensci / roweb

:no_entry: [DEPRECATED] Active at https://github.com/ropensci/roweb2
https://legacy.ropensci.org
Other
18 stars 29 forks source link

Reorganize the packages page? #191

Open karthik opened 9 years ago

karthik commented 9 years ago

It looks like a very long list but there are many deprecated, early development, non existent packages. Also packages like spocc = c(AntWeb, Ecoengine, gbif, inat, rebird) + taxize. If we grouped them, people will know installing spocc + taxize = the biodiversity suite.

richfitz commented 9 years ago

:+1: with this and #190. I wonder if there's some general classification that allows for "published" packages vs experiments / dead ends etc to be distinguished. It might be worth systematically working through which packages would actually pass through onboarding and only really promote those?

sckott commented 9 years ago

Hmm, my take on this is that I want as many eyes as possible on pkgs in early dev - instead of waiting until e.g., 1st version on CRAN, then putting up on pkgs page, - Disagree?

In terms of pkgs that are deprecated/defunct/we-don't-want-people-using, yeah, makes sense to remove those.

In terms of putting all through onboarding - nice idea, but we can barely get reviewers for the few pkgs we get in onboarding, but I guess we could review each others to speed it up

richfitz commented 9 years ago

Definitely. But perhaps a second page "rOpenSci labs" or "rOpenSci beta" could help distinguish between packages that go well and those that are more experimental?

sckott commented 9 years ago

Sounds good to separate them, or at least by default show more stable ones, and then toggle a button to see stable + beta on same page

cboettig commented 9 years ago

:+1: for the re-organization and for distinguishing between beta, in production, and deprecated.

We want people to experiment with the betas but not mistake their potential bugs as representative of more polished stuff. Also, perhaps we should document the deprecation somehow, rather than having packages just 'disappear'?

sckott commented 9 years ago

Also, perhaps we should document the deprecation somehow, rather than having packages just 'disappear'?

Where would that go? on the packages page?

cboettig commented 9 years ago

I guess so. or on a separate page linked from the packages page.

On Sun, Jul 19, 2015, 7:54 AM Scott Chamberlain notifications@github.com wrote:

Also, perhaps we should document the deprecation somehow, rather than having packages just 'disappear'?

Where would that go? on the packages page?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/ropensci/roweb/issues/191#issuecomment-122667706.

http://carlboettiger.info

cboettig commented 9 years ago

Related to this: https://github.com/ropensci/drat/issues/1

also, really minor issue, but the text describing each topic area (e.g. "Data Publication") is really light-coloured, almost invisible. Maybe a slightly darker grey (e.g. matching the footer grey) would be better.

sckott commented 9 years ago

@cboettig tried, but can't figure out where the color is for those elements - above my css paygrade

mbjones commented 9 years ago

@sckott @cboettig Seems to come from flat-ui.css, line 477. Chrome's "Inspect Element" is super useful for CSS experimentation.

sckott commented 9 years ago

@mbjones but I think it comes from a .less file https://github.com/ropensci/roweb/blob/master/assets/flat-ui/less/flat-ui.less

karthik commented 9 years ago

@cboettig tried, but can't figure out where the color is for those elements - above my css paygrade

I can fix those.