Re: Added requirement for translation of debconf templates
On Sun, January 18, 2009 20:04, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 05:24:05PM +0000, Neil Williams wrote:
>>>> using debconf that requires sponsorship, that debconf translations
>>>> are requested and updated by the maintainer on an ongoing basis.
>
>>> You mean "that requires [my] sponsorship" ?
>>>
>
> ...
...
> For the first upload I broadly agree but for other uploads I think it's
> worth considering other aspects of the tempo of development - is the effect
> of uploading without waiting for translations likely to be a long term
> thing or is it likely to be a brief interlude in unstable.
Yes, in some circumstances I think it could be considered a good idea to
first make an upload to unstable, and once you're sure that the new
debconf template and the code associated with it has stabilised, only then
ask for translations. Suppose it seems the template wasn't required
afterall, or a change is needed, all translation work is wasted or has to
be redone.
Of course you're free to declare the boundaries of what you want to
sponsor and make them as sharp as you see fit. I prefer not to post an
elaborate set of rules, but rather judge a package on a case by case
basis. Both are valid approaches, and have different tradeoffs in
predictability versus flexibility.
I would appreciate it if you would make it more clear that what your
present are *your* requirements for sponsorship. Your mail reads like an
annoucement rather than a change in what are your personal preferences.
thanks,
Thijs
Reply to: