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

Re: Complete draft of the March 16th and 30th meetings minutes

Frans Pop wrote:
> On Monday 06 April 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
>> Frans Pop wrote:
>>> On Monday 06 April 2009, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>> It would be nice if you could clarify why do you believe it is
>>>> nonsense.
>>> No thanks. I see no reason why _I_ should make that effort.
>> Please stop that hostility.
> What hostility?
> Isn't it normal that the person proposing changes should provide 
> argumentation for those changes before the person doing all the work
> "defends" his current methods?
> All I've seen so far is:
> 22:44 < otavio>  - we could upload installer manual too to give more up to 
> date docs
> 22:45 < otavio> Even if installer manual is not translated, this can bring 
> up more attenting to what is done
> 22:45 < otavio> and what is míssing
> 22:45 < bubulle> I think it's OK to upload the d-i manual without the l10n 
> during the development cycle
> This is literally *all* that was said about the installation guide. Those 
> really are no more than very vague statements without any reasoning or 
> backing in facts.

Yes, so they don't imply any suboptimal handling of things now...

> To me it's in no way clear how _any_ of the three goals listed there would 
> be served by more frequent uploads or skipping calls for translation 
> updates before uploads. To me it mostly shows that neither Otavio nor 
> Christian has any real idea of what they're talking about. I therefore 
> think it's up to them to explain their reasoning.

I think s/uploads/updates + uploads/ is what they had in mind. I also
think the part about translation updates is only to not wait for them,
not to just skip them.

> And really, it would help if people at least did some minimal research 
> into how and why things are before suggesting random changes.

I think you might jump to conclusions too fast, there was only an honest
worry to keep the documentation as much as possible up-to-date AFAICS.

> And yes, asking _is_ allowed. But preferably in a neutral way _before_ 
> implying that the current way things are done is incorrect or at least 
> suboptimal.

Right, though I don't think there was anything implied.



Reply to: