Hello, > Well, from my live discussions here with Javier Sola, I would say, > pretty rudely that they actually don't care a sh^W second about the > tools, but more about the goal to achieve...which is exactly what I > also have in mind. That's my concern too. I just don't want to spend the summer learning "new cool technology" instead of getting things done. > And I actually don't want us to fall in the usual geek trap of > choosing tools before having the goals. The decision to work on WordForge is also a decision to use the tools that WordForge uses. We *are* already committing to the tools! It would be risky to do such a thing without knowing the tools themselves, don't you agree? I am looking from the perspective of a software engineer rather than just a coder; unit testing and object-oriented design are not tools. I mentioned Python because I like that choice. > > I would like to point out basing the project on Wordforge is a risk > > which must be consciously evaluated. With a few days of sketching > > and prototyping I can predict fairly accurately how much I can do > > in X days working Y hours per day, say, using Zope 3, which I have > > been working with for the past two years. However, I cannot > > predict how much time it will take for me to familiarize with > > Wordforge, how much faster/slower my rate of development will be in > > its context, how much communication with its other developers will > > affect productivity, how much time it will take to improve Pootle's > > performance, etc. Say, if I am more than twice slower with the > > technologies Pootle uses than with Zope 3 (although this is > > unlikely), it's almost certainly a net loss for this project. > > Certainly not, I think. We actually want things to advance and I would > say that we are not *that* in a hurry. After all, it's like 13-14 > years that Debian lives without i18n infrastructure. We can wait for a > couple more months, or even one year. Sure, it's not a disaster if we go slower than we can, but I don't see why it would be considered good. Although that last statement of mine was a bit too strong, sorry about that. My point was that planning could be way off because this is new territory. > > Would you like me to update my proposal to reflect the stronger > > relationship with Wordforge? > Well, that would make things clearer, yes. Will do. I think I still have today to do that. > I understand that this may sound as a decision, which is actually the > hardest thing to achieve in Debian, but we need one to go on. A decision is what I was trying to drag out from you all along ;) That clears things up. > What you can do right now is going through WordForge site and get here > and there information about the things they'd like to see achieved and > see which of those mostly feed what you feel the most able to do. OK, I will try to do that, but I think that we should start from "what Debian needs from WordForge" rather than "what WordForge wants". Given enough time, anyone can do pretty much anything, so work should be requirements-driven. A good starting point seems to be making the process compatible with what have we discussed, because this is the crux of the project. On the other hand, what you suggest is a good strategy to get acquainted with WordForge. > Mostly interactions of translation work in different projects such as > Ubuntu and Debian. And also, the internal culture of all the biggest > l10n teams in the project (all of them have deeply confirmed this as > an important feature for them) Understood. If everyone wants it, we'll have it ;) > OK, point taken. To be fair, not being in a live discussion certainly > doesn't help in that matter, especially when I'm actually in a > complete hurry to get as much things as possible to be done during the > unique occasion of Debconf. It appears that I have been a bit, ummm, grumpy for the past few days. I am not a native English speaker and things sometimes come off slightly differently than intended. Apologies. Best regards, -- Gintautas Miliauskas http://gintasm.blogspot.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature