Hi, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote: > > > > On Nov 20, 2018, at 10:54 PM, Holger Wansing <hwans...@mailbox.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:42 PM, Holger Wansing <hwans...@mailbox.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Andrei POPESCU <andreimpope...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Hello, > >>>> > >>>> I just sent a join request on Salsa for installer-team. I would need > >>>> access to update the Romanian translation of d-i, assuming I will have > >>>> the time to work on it (been inactive the past 3 years or so). > >>> > >>> Translation update for Romanian would be really great. Thanks > >>> (CC'ing kibi for group join request) > >> > >> Isn’t it enough to just send pull requests with the translation updates? > > > > I'm unsure what this means in real life: > > translator requests to include their translation via salsa, and a team > > member > > needs to accept them? > > Yes, exactly this :-).
So, where is the benefit compared to the way, giving translators commit access themself? Of course, we limit access to the git repo, which can be considered as a pro. But to achieve that, we need more manpower for doing the "accept pull requests" jobs, that's the contra site. Since manpower is always an issue on platforms like Debian, I would vote for the "give translators commit access" way :-) Holger -- Holger Wansing <hwans...@mailbox.org> PGP-Finterprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
