Re: NMUs applying sleeping wishlist bugs about translation (was something else)

[Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org>]

Quoting Stephen Frost (sfrost@snowman.net):

> Just about everyone else appears to feel all they should care about is
> the changes they make in their NMU instead of actually caring about the
> package and the distribution.  There's this feeling of "not my problem".

I have to correct here : when considering a NMU (or even doing it), I
nearly always look at the BTS just to see whether this particular
package doesn't have any other bugs which I could easily fix, with my
(limited) knowledge.

I wouldn't call this "not my problem"... :-)

BUT, of course, as I'm not Superman, I most often cannot deal with all
already opened bugs. I would rather call this "I cannot endorse all
world problems"....


> > So, once again, nobody here is threating to open RC bugs against all
> > packages not translated in a given language. Nobody even spoke of opening
> > bugs because a given program is not translated.
> 
> You, again, didn't read the thread.  No one said anything about
> threating to open RC bugs, etc, etc.  There was, however, a discussion
> about the possibility of changing the severity level at some point in
> the future to where translations would be considered RC-level bugs.  You
> might read the thread to see our opinions on that.

We probably had a misunderstanding there. I certainly do not want and
did not write, that translation bugs should become RC stuff.

I wanted to mention that having stuff translated, especially when it
interacts with users is a major consideration for me.

So, the software *and the package* should use methods for making this
possible.

More precisely speaking, and just for giving an example, I hope that
someday using po-debconf will become mandatory in the distribution
(see #206684 for the first step).

So, yes, if this is adopted (206684 is just the first step-->make
debconf mandatory and recommend to use the gettexted variant), a
package prompting the user without (po-)debconf (or a similar tool but
there isn't another one) might have a RC bug raised against him.

But, of course, I absolutely do not want to have my 1292th BR for
"French debconf templates translation" be something else than tagged
as "i18n" when this tag will exist and certainly not RC....

(time for boosting #114221, I think...)

This was for clearing up my point....I still think that the discussion
more or less lead nowhere unless we manage to continue it with a few
beers for tempering our feelings... ;-)

--