Re: APT 0.6 development: who to synchronize with?
On Fri, May 06, 2005 at 07:31:32PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> One minor worry I'm currently having.
I'm sorry that I caused you worries. Please let me explain the
upload. The current version of apt in experimental is some versions
behind the development version in arch and behind the version in
ubuntu too. That's why I asked for permission to upload a updated
version into experimental. It's mostly a release with fixes for the
apt-secure code and it only contains one minor string change.
> I currently try to maintain APT i18n/l10n in two branches which I keep
> synchronised with Matt's apt--main and apt--stable branches.
>
> On the other hand, I see APT 0.6 uploads by Michael Voigt.
>
> How am I supposed to resynchronise with current uploaded sources?
The upload was from the apt@packages.debian.org/apt--main--0
tree. Matt synced it with my tree before the upload. The apt--main--0
tree is the main tree that you can use to sync your tree.
> I know that Matt syncs his branches with mines from time to time, but
> how do you, Michael, synchronise before uploading?
I sync with Matt tree (apt--main--0) and if he is happy with my
patches he sync them into his tree. I don't think that anything
changes for you.
> In short, how can I be sure that the PO directory I have is
> up-to-date?
I don't think that this is a problem as long as we use the
apt--main--0 branch as the common merge tree.
> Up to now, this was not a big concern because of the low priority of
> l10n for post-sarge development.
>
> However, now that sarge development is frozen and we can barely not
> expect new l10n to APT 0.5, I would prefer beginning to put some push
> to translators so that they update their work for 0.6. Of course, for
> this, I need to be sure of my work base.
Are you happy with the model descriped above? Does it suits your
needs? Or would you rather like to see it handled in a different way?
Cheers,
Michael
--
Linux is not The Answer. Yes is the answer. Linux is The Question. - Neo
Reply to: