Re: Debian Project News 2010/14 frozen. Please review and translate
Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> I'm not a native English speaker, but shouldn't the parenthesis read "is
> currently BEING investigated"? This sounds like the investigation was
> completed.
[...]
> s/The release/The release team/
Agreed, I've done these.
> It therefore allows
> users to easily access newer versions of packages; but users can
> not just upgrade to the following stable release but will at least need to
> also use the corresponding regular backport suite for packages from the
> sloppy suite.
>
> Woo - this sentence is heavy. I don't understand exactly what it means.
Replaced with
It therefore allows
users to easily access newer versions of packages; but users can
not just upgrade to the following stable release. They will at least need to
upgrade to using the backports suite for the next release.
(I hope that's right).
> So it is possible to search for particular tags, bugs, meetings, or specific work.
>
> Shouldn't the "So" starting the last sentence simply be removed?
Done.
> Is it newsworthy if packages, even popular ones like the <a
> href="http://packages.debian.org/chromium-browser";>Chromium web
> browser</a>, get removed or added to Debian's testing branch?
> Debian Project Leader Stefano Zacchiroli <a
> href="http://upsilon.cc/~zack/blog/posts/2010/10/Debian_squeezes_Chromium_back_in/";>doesn't think so</a>
> and points out that Chromium is a good example for the non-newsworthiness
> of these things. It had been removed from Debian's testing branch, causing
> a media fuss and some criticism, as it appeared that Chromium would
> not be part of the next stable release. However, as the release critical
> bugs have been fixed, the package was allowed back again. Which is -
> according to Stefano - actually not newsworthy either.
>
> This is one strange news item. I'm not convinced this should be included, but
> supposing it is...
>
> I haven't seen a "media fuss" about this, in fact I wouldn't have noticed if it
> wasn't for Stefano's blog post. The only "media" coverage I can see, on LWN,
> actually goes beyond squeeze and even beyond Chromium, so I don't think that
> news item alone can be treated this way. In any case, I'm wondering which
> release-critical bugs were fixed.
I'm not doing corrections for you where they're just a matter of
opinion - at least, not without a suggested alternative text.
> Debian maintains a <a href="http://www.debian.org/users";>list of Debian
> users</a> ranging from governmental or educational institutions up to
> dozens of companies, of which surprisingly not all are IT related.
>
> I'm not a native English speaker, but I don't think "up to" is right here.
Strictly speaking it's redundant, but (IMHO) the good sort of
redundant.
> 5 applicants have been
> <a href="https://nm.debian.org/nmlist.php#newmaint";>accepted</a>
> as Debian Developers and
> 7 applicants have been
> <a href="http://lists.debian.org/E1P4qsO-0001Bw-V3@franck.debian.org";>accepted</a>
> as Debian Maintainer and
> 13 people <a href="http://udd.debian.org/cgi-bin/new-maintainers.cgi";>started
> to maintain packages</a> since the previous issue of the Debian
>
> There are 2 "and"-s here, and inconsistent plural (5 as Debian DeveloperS, 7 as
> Debian Maintainer).
Done (turning the second "and" into a "while").
> According to the <ahref="http://udd.debian.org/bugs.cgi";>bug-tracking
> web interface of the Ultimate Debian Database</a>, the upcoming release,
> Debian 6.0 <q>Squeeze</q>, is currently affected by
> 327 release-critical bugs. Ignoring bugs which are easily solved
> or on the way to being solved, roughly speaking, about
> 130 release-critical bugs remain to be solved for the
> release to happen.
>
> The high number should currently be 277. Note that a space is missing in
> "ahref".
One unjustified opinion, one problem that I don't see in my copy.
--
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package
Reply to: