On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 07:13:25PM +0100, Magos?nyi ?rp?d wrote: > Summary of objections so far: > -the proposal would drain resources from other more useful activities, > as there are other things to translate, and users would feel encouraged > to report bugs on their own language. > my opinion: > -this would mean serious architectural changes Uh, I've missed the start of this thread, but I assume you're talking about having non-English bug reports. In that case you've missed a serious one: people can no longer look through the BTS and expect to be able to understand all the bugs they find. An alternative approach would be to have a separate BTS that accepts reports in a given language, and a team that manages the bugs filed to that BTS and forwards them upstream to Debian, having translated them. That sort of thing is good even for English users: having someone look over your problem to make sure it's not user error is a Good Thing before you go bothering package maintainers. > I think that this approach is better than the other alternatives > proposed because: > -those bugs which not even got into the view of developers would turn > out, and you could find them paralell with other bug reports in english > -it would help local communities Both those benefits seem to apply to having an entirely separate BTS, and the "serious architectural changes" are avoided. Presuming I've figured out what you're talking about, of course. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review! -- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda
Attachment:
pgpPyHi_yYCvE.pgp
Description: PGP signature