Re: FYI: 15stable-amd64-quarterly has had 2 successful builds, despite not being distributed yet

> I like "Total" for the above.

Great.
 
> Are you suggesting to change the content of the that list
> and the whole page to make no reference to the "scope
> of the build" information (no count, no list for such)?

We should probably keep it, as it has (like all the other lists on the page) a search box that can be used to determine quickly if a package was supposed to be addressed.

Adding a status column to that list would be useful.  It would say either:
- "Up-to-date" in case of an incremental build and the package already exists.
- Any of the already existing statuses ("Built", "Failed", "Skipped", "Ignored", "Fetched", "Remaining").
With this, users can jump to the relevant status-specific table and consult the additional columns there (such as Log) for a specific port.  This makes it easier to find the fate of a specific package by not having to search in all tables.  We can then imagine refinements (a link automatically filling the search box of the right table and jumping to it), but already just having the status info seems valuable.

> Are you suggesting that the list should only list the
> port-packages that are in the "Total" and, so, that
> the "entries" figure would have the same value as
> "Total"?

No.  And, if we add the status column as evoked above, I don't think there is a need to even add this list of non-up-to-date packages as a separate section.

> (Calling the items ports when a port can define multiple packages
> and pacakges are what is built is odd these
> days --and has been for a long time.)

If you view a port as an origin + a flavor, there's still a 1:1 correspondence, but that doesn't seem to be the common acceptation for a "port" and could be considered a stretch of the mind.  That's why using "packages" seems preferable to using "ports".  Not too sure if saying "port-packages" is better, as it might cause more confusion.

> So if the "scope of the build" information is
> kept, I expect that its terminology should be
> changed to avoid ambiguity.
> 
> I could imagine having lists and figures for
> both:
> 
> ) "Total's port-packages"
> and:
> ) "All port-packages"

I really think these two terminologies are too close and thus confusing (why would the "Total" and "All" numbers differ? that's really unintuitive).  "Build scope" seems much better (further improvements welcome).

> Note:
> If I understand right, such may well be changes to
> how poudriere works for providing html pages.

All these changes are cosmetic except the new status column in the "Build scope" (or whatever) list.  That specific change is anyway a nice-to-have and could be done separately in a second step once the existing names are fixed, which really is the priority.

Thanks and regards.

-- 
Olivier Certner