Hello Richard, Le Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:17:49 -0430, Richard <richard.h...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > Charles-H. Schulz escribió: > > Alexandro, > > > > > > Le 26/02/10 11:51, Alexandro Colorado a écrit : > > > >>>> > >>>> Are you saying I can't patch things myself? That is a ridiculous > >>>> statement for a FLOSS project. > >>>> > >>> No I'm not saying this at all. You are free to patch pretty much > >>> everything in Free and Open Source Software. In fact you're even > >>> free to patch the Linux kernel, but it does not mean that 1) your > >>> patch will be accepted 2) the patch will be integrated as fast as > >>> you want if it is accepted. > >>> > >> Seems to me my patch got accepted just fine, release guys got no > >> problem taking my builds. > >> > > > > > > And obviously they knew they would run out of time to integrate it > > before the release. It was RC 5 remember. So far, all this does look > > like if you could only submit your patch at RC 5 level, perhaps the > > ES QA process is somewhat suboptimal. > > > > > >> > >>> What we have here now is rigorously identical. You released a > >>> patch somewhere around the RC 5 (RC 5, again, not beta nor RC 1) > >>> and then you are surprised when you're being told your patch came > >>> in too late and that it will be included in the next > >>> micro-release (2.3.1). But that is not enough for you so you > >>> decide to switch builds. > >> Well I was a bit surprised specially because they ask us to > >> gsicheck it which send the signal that they will integrate it asap. > >> > > > > Perhaps this calls for a clarification of the process of patch > > integration, especially the l10n related ones. It would probably be > > helpful, what do you think? > > > > > >>> So in short, it's not about freedom: it's about following a > >>> community process. Not following such a process is ridiculous for > >>> a FLOSS project. > >> As far as I know the process wasn't really affected, there was a > >> QA, there was a release build, and it was patched and then > >> released with no major question asked. > >> > > > > > > That's an interesting way to formulate it: if you were fine with > > whatever the release team did then why do we find ourselves in a > > situation where builds got switched? > > > > > > > >> The only issue here is somewhat amusing since > >> you are not in QA, nor release nor l10n. So what exactly is your > >> business here? > >> > > > > I am in QA, and I'm in l10n, because that's my role: NLC is QA + > > l0n + documentation + marketing + users support. I am supposed to > > stand, just like you and every other native-lang lead, at the > > crossroads of each of these efforts. This becomes particularly > > acute when I receive complaints on one specific localization. In > > this case it turns out it was the ES one. > > > > Charles. > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@native-lang.openoffice.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@native-lang.openoffice.org > > > > > I think the thing to do is forget the bickering. And plan how to > avoid the problem in the future. > > Lots of effort goes into getting the translations done in a short > amount of time with limited resources. The problem may be that > Sun/Oracle is no longer building the Spanish OOo in a timely fashion. > I may be wrong but that is why I get my instance of OOo via my distro > who in turn get it from Go-OO. Which in turns brings some instability issues. No bickering from my side, Richard, but a need to remedy to this issue. But that's the distro's choice. Anyway; a good discussion on these processes has started on d...@l10n , which is good and I hope we will be able to improve the overall situation. best, Charles. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@native-lang.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@native-lang.openoffice.org
