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

Re: http://www.perrier.eu.org/weblog/2008/07/15#anti-l10n-cabal

Quoting Dominic Hargreaves (dom@earth.li):
> So send me patches.
> Do you *really* expect development in *unstable* to be stalled every
> time a new template is needed?

Certainly not. But I somewhat expect maintainers to try talking with
-i18n folks when introducing translatable material, Dominic.

To be honest, I hesitated before writing that blog entry because the
maintainer of the "offending" package is you, and I already had good
exchanges in the past. So, if you feel this was like fingerpointing,
please accept my public apologies.

Now to the topic and efforts to solve that "issue": I just sent an
intent to help coordinating an l10n update round for your package (I
use the same process than l10n NMU except that I perfectly know there
won't be any NMU). So, I propose that we move on and go for it.

Back to the initial topic of your mail: I still have to cook up
something for the DevRef which would put some strong suggestion to
first ask for l10n (and review of English as well) when introducing
debconf templates. 

I however fully understand that it can't always happen (for instance
when a debconf template is urgently needed for an RC bug).

In such cases, I think that a small note to -i18n by the maintainer,
basically saying "folks, I just introduce a debconf template without
asking for translations because <foo> and <bar>....but please note
that I will do another upload with the bunch of translations you'll
soon send me".....would be just perfect to avoid grumpyness by
frustrated translators....

This is certainly partly about frustration (after *months* trying to
complete the translation ratio for many languages) and, again, I'm
sorry this went on you. I really hope we'll be able to continue on
good collaboration and I add +1 on my beer count with /you.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: