Re: [RFC] Dropping architectures alpha and m68k from the Installation Guide
On Wednesday 14 October 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 October 2009, Brian Szymanski wrote:
> > As far as the burden on translators goes, is there a priority ranking
> > system for what needs to be done? Seems like that could help here...
Sorry, I misread that comment.
Yes, there is a priority system when it comes to translating. And I have
used that in the past for new translations. I've suggested a few times to
start with certain chapters and also to postpone parts that are not
relevant for x86.
And it would in theory be acceptable to leave specific text for non-release
arches untranslated.
The main problem is that, except for the few cases where arch-specific
stuff is in completely separate files, there is no way to tell whether it
is arch-specific text that is not up-to-date, or general text. And that
only goes for XML-based translations; for PO-based translations it is
practically impossible.
Partly because of that I'm (as release manager for the manual) not willing
to accept that translators treat the less popular architectures as
second-class citizens. As long as we have one source for the manual that
includes all architectures and as long as we "sell" Debian as the
universal OS, the you can either translate the whole manual, or not at
all. I simply don't want to have to wade through translations to check
exactly what bits are and are not up-to-date every time I prepare a
release [1].
IMO an outdated or incomplete translation can be worse that having no
translation at all.
[1] Although I am always willing to make exceptions on a case-by-case
basis.
Reply to: