Re: Translations sleeping in the BTS (was: Re: non-DD contributors and the debian keyring)
Quoting Stephen Frost (sfrost@snowman.net):
> Except what you don't realize is that one should never, ever, ever just
> NMU and then forget about the package. If you do an NMU then you need
> to make sure it worked, follow the package and make sure there aren't
> problems with it and follow up with the maintainer on the bugs. I don't
> care what you change in the package, if you NMU then you need to do that
> at a *minimum*, just as if you were the maintainer. It's not until the
> official maintainer incorporates the NMU changes and closes the bugs
> that the NMU'er can forget about it.
But *why the hell* do you assume I don't already do this for packages
I NMU ?
I'm really sorry, but it seems that you've decided in your mind that I
do NMU without care. I'm really sorry to say that it's exactly the
opposite.
The only difference is that I follow the package the time necessary
for being sure that I didn't break anything. I don't want to follow it
indefinitely, that's all.
And, as Steve pointed out, translation stuff is minimalistically
invasive so this does not require an enormous amount of attention
after the NMU.
But, sorry, if a RC bug is raised which is obviously unrelated to the
things I changed, why should I care for it more than the normal wayt
(ie, if by chance I can deal with it...I *will* do just like I would
with any RC bug I'm able to fix....but if I'm perfectly unable to fix
it besides tagging the bug "help", what should be done ?)
Oh yes : I shouldn't have NMU'ed the package. I'd rather leave this
pt_BR.po file sent by one of the most active brazilian contributors
sleep in the BTS and slowly dying because noone cares about it.
> > mostly po-debconf switches or translation incormoration. But, if a bug
> > related to something completely different in the package occurs, then
> > I cannot fix it be cause I'm not invloved in the given software.
>
> Then you shouldn't be doing an NMU on it. When you NMU something you
> take responsibility for it temporairly until the maintainer gets back.
We seem to have different interpretation of the various documents
which try to define common sense.. :-)
> > For what I read, it is not required to be able to maintain everything
> > for a given package for being able to NMU it. It is just required to
> > be able to fix possible introduced bugs....
>
> Then what you read is wrong.
Nope. Your interpretation differs from mine.. :-)
> > This is precisely what's currently happening.. :-)
>
> Glad to hear it, perhaps some day you will, though personally I hope to
> hell you never manage to get it considered an RC bug, and I'll work to
> make sure that doesn't happen.
This does just mean you don't care a lot about translation and can live
with an (sometimes bad) english-only distribution.
I cannot and most people cannot too.
This is why maybe some day using tools which help translation work may
become mandatory (ie po-debconf instead of plain debconf templates,
gettexted README.Debian files, translated man pages and so on...).
Such tools make translation minimalistically invasive, thus allowing
people with limited "noble" hacking knowledge to still make
significant contributions to the whole stuff.....
I (and the whole l10-french team too), currently, have one goal : just
have 100% prompting made in french in my favourite Linux
distribution. The tools are there, the manpower is there and the
motivation is there also ... :-). I'm nearly sure that all l10n teams
have more or less secreteky the exact same goal (but as the french are
arrogant people, we confess our goals.....)
Reply to: