Quoting Jens Seidel (firstname.lastname@example.org): > 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.
Description: Digital signature