Re: Debian Debconf Translation proposal ( again )
On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 16:14:53 +0000
Colin Watson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 05:07:04PM +0100, Tim Dijkstra wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 14:29:58 +0000
> > Colin Watson <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > > OK, the problem of filing bugs on every individual package, and
> > > > praying they get accepted, remains.
> > >
> > > Don't pray that they get accepted. Take the initiative and NMU in
> > > the usual way after some suitable period. Everyone else doing
> > > general work on our packages has to do exactly the same thing;
> > > what gives translators a different status?
> > And two: even if they were the point is that it means yet another
> > step in the translation cycle.
> That applies to people doing other work on packages too, not just
I don't know what you mean here ... The point was, that if we could
prevent the maintainer having to add each translation to his package,
that would simplify things. Usually (when he/she doesn't speak
the language) there's not a lot a maintainer can do with a translation
other than merging it in. So why bother him with it?
With other work, patches and stuff, it is obviously a very good idea if
the maintainer looks at it before it is applied.
> I just wanted to say it would be a little bit easier, if
> >> translation
> >> wouldn't have to pass through a package maintainer (for both
> > translator/maintainer).
> And it would be less good; maintainers do pick up errors in
> translations from time to time, which is valuable. One of the jobs of
Some teams have a review system, which is undoubtedly much more
efficient in finding errors than a maitainer (who doesn't even speak the
> a maintainer is to collate contributions to a package. Please stop
> trying to subvert this or work around it! If maintainers are being
> delinquent, they should be assisted or replaced.
I'm not trying to subvert anything, I'm just thinking about ways to make
all our lives easier.