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

Re: Improving Package descriptions

Quoting Stefano Zacchiroli (leader@debian.org):

> Which pointers should I give them to do that in a way which is the most
> useful and less intrusive for -l10n-english? Should they submit bugs
> with the new package descriptions? (if so, with which "metadata",
> e.g. tags, usertags, etc) Or should they follow any other established
> procedure you might find best suited?  Should they get alioth accounts
> and or membership to any specific Debian project?

I think it's good that reviews are done in the mailing list. They end
up with a bug report filed against the relevant package.

Bugs are user-tagged as follows:
user debian-i18n@lists.debian.org
usertag debconf-rewrite

This, because, they are debconf reviews. We could imagine tagging them
as "description-rewrite".

> Similarly, what is the best contact point to coordinate such
> initiatives? I take -l10n-english is, but this is your chance to say
> something else would be preferable!

Yep, -l10n-english. http://wiki.debian.org/I18n/SmithReviewProject is
a good pointer to give.

What we are most missing are motivated native speakers of English. We
need people who love their language and are very keen at writing it
properly. This is what makes the success of Smith reviews, indeed.

(of course, I do not count myself among such very clever people, I'm
just the fool who shakes things to make them happen, and also the fool
who makes everybody's day with my reviews in Frenglish...)

I would recommend the use of the toolkit I'm using myself (it's linked
on the wiki page):

This is a set of (badly written) scripts that are probably handy for
this (there are also texts  meant to be sent to maintainers: these
ones are important for them to understand....and accept the work
that's being done. There are years of experience behind these

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: