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

Re: a different workflow for DPN?


Le 01/10/2012 23:59, Paul Wise a écrit :

I've now moved the files around to use the new layout
(dpn/YYYY-NN.LL.wml since I got no feedback). The new layout also has
the advantage that we can work on both the current edition and the
next edition at the same time.

A next directory could have done the trick, so an index-next.wml file as we used one already in the past. I fail to see the benefit of changing the file names, making it harder to point to a direct URL when we ask for review and contribution, and in the HowTo make a DPN documentation. I also fail to see the benefit of a flat structure (I was pretty happy with my partial checkout, only caring about English and the French translation).

I notice those changes have been made without trying to reach the translation teams, that seems to hurry a bit stuff without coordination.

Not sure who committed the Italian translation for DPN 2012-19, but it
needs to be sent to the debian-news-italian mailing list and moved to
the webwml repository.

That's something only the Italian team can answer, copying them now.

I'll implement the release script soonish, probably in python. If I
don't do that before the next edition, here is the general procedure
it will follow:

Convert the current edition and translations to mails, send them to
the relevant lists, add them to the webwml repo and delete them from
the publicity repo.

We already have a script to edit the mail from the online content (and making sure the content is online before sending the mail is a must). Please, do not impose a new workflow to translators without even asking them: e.g. even if the French team manage to publish a DPN translation in time, we currently send the mail a few days after it is published, to give more time for reviews. I have no idea of how other team works. Furthermore, we can't blindly trust the output of a script: even if the current script has been improved a lot (thanks Thomas), we usually review its output before sending the mail, and sometime fix stuff in it.



Reply to: