Should "Inactive" be more obvious?
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
needs-triage
- Dominant language
- MDX
- Stars
- 4.5k
- Forks
- 226
- Avg merge
- 2d 22h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 4
Description
If you look at any of the inactive proposals on the site, it isn't super obvious that they are inactive or legacy or that we gave up on them or something in favor of something new (which we'll be doing with the new focus group)... or why. It might be useful as it is with specs to have some warning or different styling drawing a little bit of attention to that fact.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reviewing inactive proposals on the site and comparing their presentation with specs, as the issue suggests. Identify how inactive or legacy status and its rationale should be communicated, then confirm that the resulting warning or styling is clearly visible on those proposals.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- design
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 3/5
- Estimated time
- 1-2 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100