On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:57:28AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote: > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:04:15AM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:55:20AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:23:45PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 12:10:01AM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote: > > > > > And I replied that with Dominique's proposal, someone will have to > > > > > build those l10n packages, so these errors will be caught as well. > > > > They will definitely not catch all the errors I've caught in the > > > > past. Sorry. > > > *This* is laughable. > > ... but true. As Steve Langasek noted, maintainers have a personal stake > > in a package and personal familiarity with its code, so approach > > translation review from a different angle. > You should tell KDE folks that their l10n handling is dramatically > flawed, giving more power to translators lower the quality of their > project. I am pretty sure that they will be happy to learn from us > on how to improve their l10n. > I forgot also to mention that contrary to your opinion, most errors in > PO files for the debian-installer were not caught by maintainers but by > people taking care of l10n. There is no drama here, and I don't believe Colin was claiming that maintainers catch *more* errors than translation teams do -- just that maintainers are a useful resource for review that shouldn't be ignored. The arrogance here seems to be in assuming that package maintainer's couldn't *possibly* have anything to contribute to the quality of translations, and therefore it's ok to design them out of the system. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgprgQQZzl8t0.pgp
Description: PGP signature