* Sven Luther (sven.luther@wanadoo.fr) wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:03:43PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote: > > I've never indicated in any way that the Debian project doesn't need > > translators. Please reread my statements. > > No, but stephen has hinted at such, and my original mail was addressed > at him. No, I didn't. The constant claims that I'm against translations are getting old, which increases my lack of interest in this thread. I'll try one last time here: I'm not against translations. I think it's very cool that people are working on translations, I've incorporated every translation I've been given, etc, etc. I think we could use *more* translators and that if we eventually got enough we could have more things trnaslated and have better support for translations. Perhaps even have a system where translations can be done without NMU's and have a seperate system for them which would make it easier for maintainers and translators alike. On the other hand, I have strong feelings about NMUs. NMUs should only be used when the official maintainer is away or unable to upload packages. I do not feel it is appropriate to use them to add things to the package. It requires a change to the source and a rebuild of the package. People doing NMUs should be doing them for the purpose of maintaining the package while the maintainer is unavailable, thus they should assume the responsibilies of the maintainer for those packages which they NMU until the maintainer has come back and done an upload. NMUs should not be used to update packages of maintainers who are MIA. They should not be used as a blunt instrument. If a maintainer is MIA then their packages should be orphaned to QA, hijacked, or removed. Blunt instruments should be avoided, they don't work all that well. Hopefully that's clearer. Stephen
Attachment:
pgpmMYehVAJfk.pgp
Description: PGP signature