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

Re: current rules for template changes (was Re: d-i: Plans for beta 1?)

Quoting Gaudenz Steinlin (gaudenz@debian.org):

> > Except running after last minute changes like netcfg last evening,
> > yes..:-).
> Sorry if this upload was wrong according to the rules. I was acting
> under the premise that only strings in sublevels 1 and 2 were frozen. So
> I thought it is OK to add strings on sublevel 5. IMHO it's absolutely no
> problem if those are not translated as they are only shown if you
> preseeded an invalid value or if you are running in expert mode. The
> changes to all other strings were only trailing whitespace corrections
> and I took extra care to verify that the don't change the templates.pot
> file in any way. I removed one change because a string became fuzzy.

No problem, thanks for the care you took.

> But as the Google summer of code of Sorina progresses we will have more
> templates changes coming up. The new ESSID list (instead of the simple
> text input we currently have) and other improvments are only possible by
> adding or changing templates. 
> What are the current rules for template changes? Is there a way to get
> these changes into netcfg and uploaded without disturbing translators
> too much?
> I know that now with the freeze being just about 1 week away it might be
> difficult to get the results of the GSOC project into wheezy. The timing
> is quite unfortunate for us. But if possible it would be really nice if
> at least some changes could make it into the release.

Please remember that these changes have to be documented in the
release notes, too....

I would anyway suggest to make these templates untranslatable as of
now. Otherwise, I'll again "run" after them...and, even if I like
running, I prefer doing so in the outside..:-)

I willturn them  to translatable when I think it's safe to launch a
new call for translations (immediately after beta1 release, I guess).

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: