Quoting Neil Williams (codehelp@debian.org): > > Yes, we can change the severity, although I'd like to run that past > > debian-i18n first. > > Christian - this is a slightly different problem to what you first > thought. It isn't that some translators have answered and some have > not, it is that a new question has been added and nobody at all has > replied. If a sane deadline is set, isn't it unlikely that not one of > the language teams managed to get a translation to the maintainer in > time? It is far more likely that the maintainer didn't ask the > translation teams before uploading the new question. I agree here. If you manage to get through the problem of having to examine binary packages' templates, then I agree that having a template that's marked translatable and *no* translation at all makes it very likely that no call for translations was issued when the templated was added. By "fairly likely", I mean "quite certain", indeed.... > The tag name might have to change: > > new-question-without-translations that would certainly help avoiding the case where maintainers entirely drop existing translations.... A properly worded long information will also help. > > It's certainty: possible right now because there may > > be cases where translators were warned but didn't have a chance to do any > > translations (for an obscure package, for instance). I think that will > > always be the case. Not really, here. Given that some language teams try to commit self to stay 100%, nearly any new debconf template will be catched. > > debian-mentors discussion also raises the valid point that a brand new > > package possibly shouldn't go to translators before the first upload. I'd > > like to get a debian-i18n opinion on that as well. Should we skip the > > Lintian tag for no complete translation if this is the first packaging? > > (We can detect this by noting that we only have one changelog entry.) > > I disagree with that analysis of the discussion on mentors - I think a > brand new package *should* go to translators before the first upload > and gave my reasons in the thread. New packages using debconf should > have their templates reviewed. Entirely agreed. > > > I'd like to see severity important but normal would be OK for starters. > > > > Remember, the rule of thumb here is that severity should match the > > severity that you'd pick for the bug that you filed about the problem, > > were you to file a bug. Important is a rather large leap over the current > > severities used for translations. > > Debconf is a little different. It is a peculiar problem that if a new > debconf question is not translated, the user does not get the chance to > reconsider their answer when the translation finally arrives. > > Normal severity would be fine if important is deemed a step too far. I think that normal is a good compromise.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature