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

Re: Debian Project News 2010/13 frozen. Please review and translate

Filipus Klutiero wrote:
> Thank you Alexander. There are still several issues in this issue, I  
> won't be available until Thursday, but here are quick remarks:
>> Rahpaël Hertzog
> Raphaël

Ah, okay, s/hp/ph/.

>> While there appeared to
>> be a shortage of baklava
> Is this relevant enough to make the news?

I interpreted it as a humorous allusion to the importance of keeping
the FTP Team well motivated at this stage in the release process...

>> Thanks very much for the hard work,
>> FTPMasters.
> Who is thanking? In any case I don't think the news is the right place  
> to transmit thanks.

Here I have to agree; there are some problems with "objectivity" in
this issue (here and to a lesser extent with the evaluation of the
CUT proposal).  I'm not sure how to fix it, though.

>> This weekend we enabled<tt>squeeze-volatile</tt>  on<tt>ftp-master</tt>
>> and setup the needed scripts so that the volatile team can fill it
>> with packages whenever needed.
> Using "we" in the news is unusual/unclear.

If it wasn't a quote I'd have corrected s/setup/set up/.

>> Please note that the general
>> handling of volatile starting with<q>Squeeze</q>  is now different to the
>> way volatile worked in the past.
> Why should readers note that...?

Still inside quotation marks.  Mind you, we could trim a few of the
excess uses of "please" elsewhere to balance it out a bit.

>> Debian was accepted as a mentoring
>> organisation for the fourth time in a row.
> 2010 was the fifth time [in a row].

Oh yes, 2006/2007/2008/2009/2010, you're right.  Why is everyone
miscounting this?

>> Again it was a great success
>> with eight students completing their projects successfully.
> I don't know if if was a great success, but I certainly don't think the  
> mail referenced supports that.

What, the one that says "This year, 8 of our 10 students succeeded
in our (very strict!) final evaluations"?  Do we usually get better
results than that?

>> Russell Coker create a<a href="http://etbe.coker.com.au/2010/09/20/my-squeeze-se-linux-repository/";>package repository for packages fixing SELinux
>> related bugs</a>  for Debian<q>Squeeze</q>.
> I suppose "create" should read "created".


>> <p>According to the<a
>> href="http://udd.debian.org/bugs.cgi";>Bugs Search interface of the
>> Universal Debian Database</a>, the upcoming release,
>> 	Debian 6.0<q>Squeeze</q>, is currently affected by
>> 301 release-critical bugs. Ignoring bugs which are easily solved
>> 	or on the way to being solved, roughly speaking, about
>> 177 release-critical bugs remain to be solved for the
>> 	release to happen.</p>
> The high number is not the number of RC bugs affecting squeeze,
> but the number of RC bugs still remaining to be fixed in squeeze.
> The number affecting is currently 330.  

Bugs with fixes on the way may affect the frozen suite, but I think
the idea is that they don't affect "the upcoming release".  Perhaps
the text should assume that readers already know its intended name
and number by now?  Or there's another chance to fit that
information in at the end of the paragraph - "for the Debian 6.0
<q>Squeeze</q> release to happen".

(6.0 or 6.0.0?)
JBR	with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
	sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package

Reply to: