[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: A few typos in debian-installer (Was: Re: [D-I] Variable subsitution (level2))

On Sunday 25 September 2005 00:40, Jens Seidel wrote:
> If the patch is accepted by most of you, I will extent it the next time
> and will try to provide it in a more suitable form.

I have done a quick check of the patch and there are a great many good 
corrections in it. However it also confirms my unhappiness with these 
kind of integrated patches.

First of all, this patch, if submitted as one big patch, should have been 
submitted as a minor bugreport against debian-installer, not sent to the 
i18n list.

I am amazed (and jealous) at your knowledge of all these languages; 
however personally I would not feel confortable in committing some of the 
changes you've made for languages I don't speak as I cannot judge your 
knowledge of the language nor, if that is what you used, the correctness 
of your dictionary and thus, the correctness of the changes.
Example: the multiple changes of s/dosyian/dosiyan/ in ku.po.

Also, the patch contains some obvious errors, or at least changes that 
need to be checked carefully:
- in ru.po a string is deleted;
- in pt_BR.po 'bootstrap' is wrongly corrected to 'boostrap' (line 8060).

I would probably be happy to commit all the really obvious changes like 
s/etx2/ext2/ or devconf/debconf. However, as they are mixed with all the 
other changes I cannot judge, I doubt I would make the effort to filter 
them out. Maybe someone else will though...

If the patch had been separated for the different languages, I probably 
would have taken the trouble to forward them to the individual 
translators responsible with the request to check and apply if correct 
(and maybe commit the really obvious ones myself).

By creating one "big" patch, you're basically putting the responsibility 
to check and apply the patch on a single person. IMO this decreases the 
chance that someone will take the trouble to look at it and thus 
increases the chance that your work will be wasted.
By investing a little bit extra time on your side and splitting the patch 
into different types of fixes and separate patches for the each language, 
this would have been avoided.

Again Jens, I very much appreciate your work (and have done in the past 
for e.g. the Release Notes), but please spare a thought for the people 
that have to review/apply/distribute your patches.


P.S. The patch for Dutch looks fine :-)

Attachment: pgpXxjwBkw6Or.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: