[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Planned changes to D-I "level 1" translation framework

Quoting Jens Seidel (jensseidel@users.sf.net):
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 01:31:29PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > However, as long as it is very clear to everybody that this split is only 
> > to set a _priority_ for what to translate first, the current split would 
> > be OK with me. It should _not_ be an excuse to stop translating once 
> > level 1 is finished and activation of languages should only be done on 
> > the understanding that *all* of d-i needs to be translated.
> Considering this I think it's useless to split the PO file. Right?
> Only inofficial builds containing partial translations would profit
> from the split.

My intent was not triggering a discussion about the language
activation criteria now. But I guess we won't escape from it.

That discussion should happen and a mistake we made for etch was not
having it before the release was getting closer.

My personal opinion is that we should activate a language when
sublevel 1 is complete....while the final D-I release should only keep
those languages that have *both* sublevels activated.

This is more or less what we did for etch....even if the criteria for
activating languages was not really precise.

Activating early allows for more testing (until someone figures out
how to make daily builds from packages built from the SVN and not from
uploaded packages).

One problem we have with new languages is the lack of real testing,
because translations only reach the arhive when the packages are
rebuilt, which only happens when a beta/RC release is planned.

We really should try to improve this for lenny.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: