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

Re: Announce of the upcoming NMU for the euro-support package

On 17/10/2006, at 3:41 PM, Christian Perrier wrote:

Quoting Clytie Siddall (clytie@riverland.net.au):

On 17/10/2006, at 3:09 AM, Christian Perrier wrote:

On 09 oct 2006 I sent a notice to the maintainer of the euro-support
Debian package (yes, you, Javier...:-)), mentioning the status of at
least one old po-debconf translation update in the BTS (bug #313594).

Again, my initial translation for that package, dated 2005-06-14. :(

The maintainer objected the NMU and will include all pending
translations, finally. Including yours, then.

Finally, huh? ;)

Actually, most of the translations I will work on will quasi
necessarily include one of your translations, Clytie. So, well, I'm
not sure that complaining here is that useful. We *know* that we're
working on stuff that has been abandoned.

Indeed. I'm very pleased with this NMU effort to rescue our work. :)

It does, however, remind me of how much time I, like other translators, have wasted on such packages, and that does make me wonder if there is any way we can avoid that happening again. We all have limited time, so we need to focus it where it can be most useful.

So I wonder if we can classify packages by maintenance efficiency, a sort of popularity-contest of our own. ;)

That way, maintainers who value our work could have priority when we allot time to tasks.

When I became aware of how much time I had wasted on debconf template translations which weren't implemented, debconf sank abruptly to the bottom of my priority list (D-I, of course, is up the top). The only debconf templates I translate or update now are those using po- debconf or requesting work actively on this list. That's a fairly coarse filter for translation activity, though. I may well be leaving out packages where translations _are_ actively maintained, but I simply don't have time to follow up the history of each package.

So I wonder if there's any way we can filter packages by translation implementation. I'd really like to assign higher priority to those debconf and program maintainers who actively manage their translations.

I don't know how this could be done, but I'd certainly be interested in using it if anyone can suggest a way. :)

from Clytie (vi-VN, Vietnamese free-software translation team / nhóm Việt hóa phần mềm tự do)

Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: