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

Re: Bug#588870: gitolite: [debconf_rewrite] Debconf templates review


On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 08:50:53AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > Please review the suggested changes are suggested, and if you have any
> > objections, let me know in the next 3 days.
>  3 days is a bit short of a timegap when package maintainers are
> encouraged to give the translators 10 days. Sorry to have missed that
> rather short time frame.

I'm sorry if it's been too short. The 3 day gap comes from a template; we
find if all the delays are stretched out the whole process becomes even
longer (from initial intent to review to folding the final translations in).

I thought I'd kept you in CC during the review process, apologies if you
didn't get the mails.

> > The second phase of this process will begin on Thursday, July 15, 2010, when I will
> > coordinate updates to translations of debconf templates.
>  I would have liked to send out the call myself after having
> incorporated the templates. :(  I even think to remember that this was
> discussed beforehand.
> > On Wednesday, July 28, 2010, I will contact you again and will send a final patch
> > summarizing all the updates (changes to debconf templates,
> > updates to debconf translations and new debconf translations).
>  I think there is no need for that - translators have to send them my
> way anyway, so I am a bit puzzled about this duplicated work of yours?

I'm afraid I didn't have that message (maybe you discussed this with
Christian somewhere?)

It's no problem to me if you're happy to handle the translations. Part of
the deal offerred to maintainers whose packages are reviewed is that we
also co-ordinate collecting and checking the translations, since often we
initiated the work in the first place :) But this is slightly different in
that you requested a review yourself.

>  Some comments on the patch for the templates and the package
> description:

I will make some suggestions for these and ask for opinions on
debian-l10n-english again, and keep you in CC. In the meantime I'll ask
translators to halt for now while we sort these out.

> [description]
> > - What makes gitolite unique is its dedication: Its primary target is corporate
> > - environments where the ability to restrict who can push to what branch is also
> > - important. It has grown beyond that initial motivation to write it and
> > - acquired several other neat features that you can find described in the main
> > - README.
> > + Gitolite can restrict who can read (clone/fetch) from or write
> > + (push) to a repository, and who can push to what branch or tag - an
> > + important issue in corporate environments. Other features include:
> > +   * access control by branch-name or by modified file/directory;
> > +   * per-developer "personal namespace" prefixes;
> > +   * simple but powerful configuration file syntax (with validation);
> > +   * config files (and authority for maintaining them) can be split;
> > +   * easy integration with gitweb;
> > +   * comprehensive logging;
> > +   * easy migration from gitosis.
>  I like the change to the description a lot too, just an amusing
> sidenote for me: Have received quite some downputting comments for
> having taken the upstream description which refered to gitosis in the
> ITP, now you are putting it back in.  *smirks*

Hmm, if you'd prefer "from similar solutions" or something similar that's
entirely up to you :)

Jonathan Wiltshire

4096R: 0xD3524C51 / 0A55 B7C5 1223 3942 86EC  74C3 5394 479D D352 4C51

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: