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

Re: [faw@funlabs.org: Re: DDTP-Links on CDD tasks web pages]

Hash: SHA1

On 21-07-2008 06:26, Andreas Tille wrote:
> 2008/7/21 Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) <faw@funlabs.org>:
>>>> ii) The "translation abandoned" behavior, somebody just clicked
>>>>    to see what happened, either translated or non translated
>>>>    packages. Not that it is harmful, but it can made packages
>>>>    popping up without knowing why.
>>> I'd rather call his a bug in the server software if something pops
>>> up that should not.
>>        If somebody asks for a translation it "pops up", it is
>> not a bug, it is how DDTSS works.
>>From 1913 Webster:  abandon
>    2. To give up absolutely; to forsake entirely; to renounce
>         utterly; to relinquish all connection with or concern on;
>         to desert, as a person to whom one owes allegiance or
>         fidelity; to quit; to surrender.
> So if somebody by chance asked for a translation but wants to
> abandon his actions I see no reason why there should be any
> action done by DDTSS.  This is even less important than
> a zero diff between old and new.  Or did I misunderstood you?
> I was talking about the "Abandon" button on the translation page.

	I think you misunderstood it. You "Abandon" your work, but
the translation is now pending, and note that this is not bad at
all, lots of teams use this as a TODO resource, coordinators can
load the translations so other team members know what is pending,
specially because DDTSS sort it by priority DDTP priority (which
has its own calculation/metric regarding the interest of final
user in the package, so -dev and -dbg have less priority than
regular packages).

	And probably the confusion is because of the terminology
I used, by "abandoned translation" I mean anything that happened
that didn't lead to a translation, either clicking on the
"Abandon" button or just closing the browser/page.

>>        If you ask for a package and it is translated, them it
>> says so, if you use "force fetch", then it comes and even if
>> you "don't change anything" it appears on the pending translation,
>> after all, you required it, and it is quite handy to load tasks
>> for others in the team, so it is not a bug.
> OK, so I missinterpreted the force option.  It seems to have one
> primary effect if I understand you right: Put the translation in question
> onto the list of pending translations.  The fact that I'm able to edit
> the translation seems like just a side effect.  So we actually need
> the functionality:  "I would like to review a translation.  Ignore my
> actions if I did not changed anything."

	Adding the "reivew" resource would be an option, just
to be clear, the "regular fetch" has no difference from the
"force fetch" regarding the pending status, the "force" only
adds the ability to tell DDTSS: "Yes, I know the description
is translated but I want you to load it to the pending
translations anyways".

	Anytime you load a description you are loading it to
be translated, that's why it appears on the "pending" list.

>>        My idea is not exactly use the DDTP email interface,
>> I was thinking about sending the "suggested fix" to the mail
>> list so people can react, fix and reply, this works for
>> people that don't want a deeper attachment with the
>> translation team (which in my opinion is not good, but it can
>> happen).
> Ah, OK, this makes sense.  Is there any bug tracker for DDTSS
> so we could collect all those wishlist features to be able to work
> on this at DebConf?

	We wish to have a debian-i18n pseudo package on the BTS,
but at the time we didn't have a clear demand to it. If we could
now re-raise the question, probably becase of the use of DDTP,
DDTSS, i18n.d.n and Pootle, it would be great if we could use
BTS to track it.


>>> Yep.  My decision is:  If there is the slightest evidence that the
>>> force option on the CDD pages just has triggered any harm and
>>> has increased the number of unneeded reviews significantly
>>> I'll drop it just now.  Please tell me immediately.  If there is no
>>> evidence we try to continue this discussion at DebConf (DebCamp -
>>> I'll be there at 6.8.).
>>        Please, drop the "force fetch" for now until we can
>> provide the resources necessary to deal with this new use
>> case.
> OK, the link containing force is not displayed any more.

	Thank you. I hope we can find a solution during DebCamp
and/or DebConf. :)

Kind regards
- --
Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw)
"Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom!"
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Reply to: