On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 07:02:00AM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote: > > There are 1274 l10n bugs (412 of these over a year old, ~800 with a patch) and > > 600 of the total follow the [INTL:xx] format so they are most probably > > po-debconf translations which are waiting for inclusion. > > > Please notice, Javier, that during the NMU campaign, I indeed fixed > (or urged you to fix) a bunch of *your* own packages fur such > things...:-) I know, I know, but I'm trying to make ammends. I have not opposed the NMUs themselves (I have opposed changing the debconf messages or removing them, though), however. > I'm not sure that we can do much now. The NMU campaign was an attempt, > and a very successful one....but I did it mostly alone (Thijs and > Tobias helped a little). That's why I think it would be nice to bring this to the maintainers' table (so to speak) to try to make them do their work. > Thomas Huriaux and I briefly discussed on IRC about this. Thomas will > try to setup a robot on churro (i18n.debian.net) to generate a dynamic > page similar to the Lucas Wall page we used for the NMU campaign. That > page would sort package by scoring them for their pending l10n > bugs. It would then allow us to decide that we take packages which > reach a given level as a target for a l10n NMU. So, the NMU campaign > would indeed become permanent instead of being a one-time effort. That would be a great thing to do. Lucas' pages are really great. Although I'm not sure the scoring is right, what is it based on? popularity or age? I think it would be best to concentrate on popularity first than age (since more users will benefit from the debconf notes). User-es, for example (as a package that is specific to Spanish users and does not benefit for translators) should have (IMHO) much less priority than gpm. Regards Javier
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature