Re: Please don't remove outdated translations if the difference isvery small
* Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-07-09 03:22]: > And just in case I've not made myself clear, this method is not good enough > for the spanish translation team. _DO_NOT_ remove any translation from the > spanish/ directory without consulting with either the debian-l10n-spanish > list or myself. Javier, IMHO the spanish team is the last that should speak up in this respect at all. You are really getting me mad. Could you *PLEASE* do at least /minimal/ checks of the things you added?! Sorry, but yes, I'm upset. Your additions *regularly* break the build, let alone really stupid mistakes like missing # infront of use or loads of HTML tags. It seems like your so called translation team only does the translation but never ever views the pages themselfs ever in spanish language. If they would they would notice the breakages they introduced at all. I am quite sure that the spanish readers are better of with removed outdated spanish pages that are not broken anymore than with badly broken ones. Yes, I regularly fix your pages, and Frank does too. If you check the logs you might notice that. I do it because I care for the quality of the webpage (and because it isn't that hard at all, mind you). But your so called "team" isn't worth it. I would really really suggest you to do some QA work on your pages _first_ before raising your voice that much. > If you insist on removing files under the spanish/ directory in an > automatic way I'll setup a similar automatic mechanism to restore them > from the CVS. This is _not_ what I developed translation-check for. It also wasn't developed for careless translation coordinators. > PS: I'm sick of wasting time reviewing wml files that were perfectly fine > before being removed. From what I noticed you do *NO* reviewing at all, so don't mention it. > And the only reason they were removed was because a typo was fixed in > the english version. LART the person who was the reason for it, but not the system because it isn't that bad at all. > PPS: I find it funny that we instate a removal policy for web translation > content when our users suffer RC bugs in our packages (and other > high-priority bugs) for months and those packages do not get fixed or > removed. Feel free to instate a removal policy for packages. Do get a consent on the appropriate list (debian-devel), like it was done for this. Yes, I would vote for it, if you like. Works for me. So long, Alfie -- SGH in Hannover sucht eine "Hostmaster/in" bzw. "Systems Administrator/in" mit u.a. folgenden Eigenschaften: "In der Administration von Unix-Systemen und deren Dienste SMTP, HTTP, BOFH, DNS und SMB besitzen Sie umfassende praktische Erfahrung."-- dasr signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please don't remove outdated translations if the difference isvery small
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 01:47:21AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 12:22:19AM +0100, Peter Karlsson wrote: > > No, I'm not trying to punish you, nor the Spanish translation team, > > and I'm not making this into a pissing contest. I am trying to help > > Debian provide a good service to its users. Having outdated > > information on our website is not providing a good service, which has > > been proven over and over again. There will be some collateral damage > > in the process, yes, but on the whole it is a good thing. > > Blindly removing content without verifying it is indeed outdated is no > service to our users. I would like you to be aware that this actually has > happened (I can produce examples if you like) and that this doesn't provide > a good service to our users either. I wonder if more time is wasted for the translators who sometimes have to resurrect content, or for the users who turn up on #debian-boot having wasted hours of effort because five translations still link to the broken sarge CD images from fsn.hu ... (Possibly a bad example since the English version was "only" changed a week ago, mind you.) -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please don't remove outdated translations if the difference isvery small
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 03:22:17AM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > PPS: I find it funny that we instate a removal policy for web translation > content when our users suffer RC bugs in our packages (and other > high-priority bugs) for months and those packages do not get fixed or > removed. Using this as an example of why outdated translations shouldn't be removed implies that you think it's a good thing that packages with RC bugs (sometimes) aren't fixed or removed ... -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please don't remove outdated translations if the difference isvery small
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 12:22:19AM +0100, Peter Karlsson wrote: > been proven over and over again. There will be some collateral damage > in the process, yes, but on the whole it is a good thing. And just in case I've not made myself clear, this method is not good enough for the spanish translation team. _DO_NOT_ remove any translation from the spanish/ directory without consulting with either the debian-l10n-spanish list or myself. If you insist on removing files under the spanish/ directory in an automatic way I'll setup a similar automatic mechanism to restore them from the CVS. This is _not_ what I developed translation-check for. Thank you. Javi PS: I'm sick of wasting time reviewing wml files that were perfectly fine before being removed. And the only reason they were removed was because a typo was fixed in the english version. PPS: I find it funny that we instate a removal policy for web translation content when our users suffer RC bugs in our packages (and other high-priority bugs) for months and those packages do not get fixed or removed. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please don't remove outdated translations if the difference isvery small
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 12:22:19AM +0100, Peter Karlsson wrote: > In response to Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña: > > *sigh* I'm not going to respond to your personal attacks. There were no personal attacks there, or, at least, it was not my intention to make them. > No, I'm not trying to punish you, nor the Spanish translation team, > and I'm not making this into a pissing contest. I am trying to help > Debian provide a good service to its users. Having outdated > information on our website is not providing a good service, which has > been proven over and over again. There will be some collateral damage > in the process, yes, but on the whole it is a good thing. Blindly removing content without verifying it is indeed outdated is no service to our users. I would like you to be aware that this actually has happened (I can produce examples if you like) and that this doesn't provide a good service to our users either. Regards Javier signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please don't remove outdated translations if the difference isvery small
In response to Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña: *sigh* I'm not going to respond to your personal attacks. No, I'm not trying to punish you, nor the Spanish translation team, and I'm not making this into a pissing contest. I am trying to help Debian provide a good service to its users. Having outdated information on our website is not providing a good service, which has been proven over and over again. There will be some collateral damage in the process, yes, but on the whole it is a good thing. -- \\// Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/ I do not read or respond to mail with HTML attachments.
Re: Please don't remove outdated translations if the difference isvery small
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 09:15:37PM +0100, Peter Karlsson wrote: > > That kind of intelligence does not have to be artificial. What about the > > original writer estimates whether his modifications are merely cosmetic or > > require a new translation ? > > That might be nice, but I don't think such a scheme would actually work. It > would require the original authors (which are many) to agree on how to > handle this. There should be clear policies to avoid this: -Developers' Reference. Adam Di Carlo will work on a +Developer's Reference. Adam Di Carlo will work on a forcing a new revision of a translation. Somebody here made a small change and forced 8 different translations to revise. That's 8*5 = 40 minutes (under Gerfried's estimate, which I don't agree with) wasted of other people's time for a simple change. It is simply not acceptable. I can find many other examples of similar wrong behaviour. > Yes. That's why there is a six month's grace period. If you haven't got time > to check your files for *minor* updates in six months, you aren't doing your > job, volunteer or not. I'm sorry but you don't get it. You don't really understand, do you? You think that translation removal is a way to punish the translation team for not doing it's job? You are actually punishing the casual web reader that stumbles into a foreign (and sometimes meaningless to him) web page when a translation that was "good enough" could have served him just fine. > > So you are actually saying that a translator can actually bypass the > > modifications and resurrect a file unmodified to satisfy the needs of an > > obsolete verification model ? > > The translator can resurrect the file, bump the version number and commit it > again. If he just resurrects it without updating the version number it will > be autopurged again next week. It is not that easy to detect which files were removed unless you dig in the Attic in the CVS server directly. Or you happen to have a CVS checkout before the massive removal was made. If you can tell me another (simple) way my ears are listening. > If the translation teams can't handle the load they should either get more > people or focus on a smaller number of pages. I would like you to explain me how can typo changes in the News/weekly hierarchy be reason enough to remove perfectly correct translations. I take News/weekly as an example of when _not_ to remove translations. Any changes there can only be typo fixes (or cosmetic changes as above) which should not force a removal, regardless of wether the translation team checked on them or not. > > We are not talking "ignorance" here but "irrelevance". And "irrelevance" > > is definitely an excuse. > > If the translations are irrelevant, then don't do them. Concentrate on the > important pages. There's no need to translate all of the pages. Just because > I haven't got a life and thus have the highest number of translation for any > single language for the Swedish translation doesn't mean that all the pages > are important to translate (I know several which aren't, and which I'm > thinking of deleting because *I* can't keep up with them). The funny thing is that your removal also affected content that should _not_ be dynamic. We are not talking about content that was substantially modified, we are talking about content that was written (and translated) years ago and now has been undergone cosmetic (in the english speaker's opinion) changes. The translated content was still valuable, and you pushed it aside. > But as I said earlier. If anyone can come up with a better system that is > guaranteed to work, please do. Keeping dead translations around is *not* a > better system. I don't see why not. We shouldn't worry about a given file that has not been updated for a while. You can put bigger warnings if you like but you don't speak for the Spanish-speaking population of the world. That language speaking population is a rather big one, and just like the Chinese-speaking (which is even bigger) population is not guaranteed to be able to make use of an english page. I can give you a zillion examples of people that would rather have an outdated translation than no translation at all. In your "holier than thou" attitude you are only punishing our users to no benefit at all. As long as the translation-check mechanism is used when typographical or cosmetic changes are done to pages (and for the look of the spanish webpages translation I would say that it's one of the primary causes of changes, specially under some hierarchies) then your metric of "six months" is bound to fail regardless of the arguments you want to make sustaining it. I think that removing stuff is only guaranteed to be of use when a language, as a whole, is not able to keep up with translations. We've removed languages in the past for this reason, and we should do it in the future too. If you want to do "fine grain" analysis, either you do it byhand (not thro
Re: Please don't remove outdated translations if the difference isvery small
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > That kind of intelligence does not have to be artificial. What about the > original writer estimates whether his modifications are merely cosmetic or > require a new translation ? That might be nice, but I don't think such a scheme would actually work. It would require the original authors (which are many) to agree on how to handle this. > And what about the translation team has other priorities than considering > every single spelling mistake correction of the original file ? Doesn't it > make sense to set priorities ? Yes. That's why there is a six month's grace period. If you haven't got time to check your files for *minor* updates in six months, you aren't doing your job, volunteer or not. > So you are actually saying that a translator can actually bypass the > modifications and resurrect a file unmodified to satisfy the needs of an > obsolete verification model ? The translator can resurrect the file, bump the version number and commit it again. If he just resurrects it without updating the version number it will be autopurged again next week. > more flexible system has to be set that will stop putting unnecessary work > load on translation teams. If the translation teams can't handle the load they should either get more people or focus on a smaller number of pages. > We are not talking "ignorance" here but "irrelevance". And "irrelevance" > is definitely an excuse. If the translations are irrelevant, then don't do them. Concentrate on the important pages. There's no need to translate all of the pages. Just because I haven't got a life and thus have the highest number of translation for any single language for the Swedish translation doesn't mean that all the pages are important to translate (I know several which aren't, and which I'm thinking of deleting because *I* can't keep up with them). But as I said earlier. If anyone can come up with a better system that is guaranteed to work, please do. Keeping dead translations around is *not* a better system. -- \\// Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/ I do not read or respond to mail with HTML attachments.
Re: Please don't remove outdated translations if the difference isvery small
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2004-07-07 08:53]: > Peter Karlsson wrote >>And sometimes the changes are quite extensive. How is the script >>supposed to be able to tell the difference, without empowering it with >>some kind of artificial intelligence? > > That kind of intelligence does not have to be artificial. What about > the original writer estimates whether his modifications are merely > cosmetic or require a new translation ? If they are only comsetic the changer should definitely bump the translation-check himself. This is done with the smart_change.pl script automagically. People should definitely start to use it more often, e.g. I really want Joey to use it for the events pages: #v+ $> ./smart_change.pl -s 's/wml::debian::event/wml::debian::past_event/' \ english/events/2004/0623-linuxtag.wml $> # to look if it didn't do anything wrong $> cvs diff -u */events/2004/0623-linuxtag.wml $> cvs ci -m'1.3: This event is past now.' */events/2004/0623-linuxtag.wml #v- >>IMHO six months without any reaction from the translation team *is* >>"way too out-dated". Personally, I would have liked to have the limit >>be even stricter. > > And what about the translation team has other priorities than > considering every single spelling mistake correction of the original > file ? Doesn't it make sense to set priorities ? If it is a spelling mistake, see above. Half a year is *more* than reasonable, no matter what priorities. It takes not even 5 minutes to do it. If you want, I can do some script for you which fetches the diff for you so you can work offline in the train on it > As far as I know there is a much larger number of text authors than of > text translators in any one language. The authors must be held > responsible in some way for the text modifications not being reflected > in the translation if they are merely cosmetic. Yes. The authors need to get educated to bump translations for typo fixes only. This gets done more and more often. If you know about such case feel free to bop the person at hand over the head... > If the CVS check/resurrection is so trivial then it is the > responsibility of the author to do it, or another, more flexible system > has to be set that will stop putting unnecessary work load on > translation teams. Yes, it is the responsibility of the author to bump the translations. So, do you have any special file at hand so we can try to educate that author, or are we just producing hot air? >>Ignorance is not an excuse. > > We are not talking "ignorance" here but "irrelevance". And > "irrelevance" is definitely an excuse. Its the ignorance of the author regarding the translators that we might be talking here in this special case. Don't be too egoistic, not everything is your fault, you know? :) So long, Alfie -- Bzgl. ssh - muß ich gestehen daß ich (noch) keine Ahnung habe was/warum/weshalb "ssh" verwendet wird bzw. was das überhaupt ist. Ich kenn die csh, die ksh und bash und deren (leichte) Unterschiede - aber keine ssh. -- Erich Aigner in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please don't remove outdated translations if the difference isvery small
On Wed, Jul 07, 2004 at 08:53:57AM +0900, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] > >> Could the cron scripts doing this (if any) be modified so that they > >> only remove translations that are _way_ too out-dated > > > >IMHO six months without any reaction from the translation team *is* > >"way too out-dated". Personally, I would have liked to have the limit > >be even stricter. > > And what about the translation team has other priorities than > considering every single spelling mistake correction of the original > file ? Doesn't it make sense to set priorities ? I agree. I for example want to focus on d-i translations at the moment, and I don't have time to mess up with every single typo in webwml module. Thus Polish translation losts more and more files due to outdateness. I think that checking severity of the changes would be proper solution. [...] regards fEnIo -- _ Bartosz Fenski | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | pgp:0x13fefc40 | IRC:fEnIo _|_|_ 32-050 Skawina - Glowackiego 3/15 - w. malopolskie - Polska (0 0) phone:+48602383548 | Slackware - the weakest link ooO--(_)--Ooo http://skawina.eu.org | JID:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | RLU:172001 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please don't remove outdated translations if the difference isvery small
Peter Karlsson wrote > This is quite counter-productive, since some version changes in the > english wml files are sometimes just cosmetic and the translation was > quite alright when it was removed. And sometimes the changes are quite extensive. How is the script supposed to be able to tell the difference, without empowering it with some kind of artificial intelligence? That kind of intelligence does not have to be artificial. What about the original writer estimates whether his modifications are merely cosmetic or require a new translation ? > Could the cron scripts doing this (if any) be modified so that they > only remove translations that are _way_ too out-dated IMHO six months without any reaction from the translation team *is* "way too out-dated". Personally, I would have liked to have the limit be even stricter. And what about the translation team has other priorities than considering every single spelling mistake correction of the original file ? Doesn't it make sense to set priorities ? As far as I know there is a much larger number of text authors than of text translators in any one language. The authors must be held responsible in some way for the text modifications not being reflected in the translation if they are merely cosmetic. > a translator redid all the work when only a few changes were needed > simply because the out of date (only 1 version difference) version > had been removed in a (semi?)automatic way. It's trivial to check the CVS on whether there already is an old version that has been purged, and to resurrect it. Ignorance is not an excuse. So you are actually saying that a translator can actually bypass the modifications and resurrect a file unmodified to satisfy the needs of an obsolete verification model ? I find it extremely presumptuous to allow the author to have absolutely no responsibility toward the number of individuals who are going to be penalized by his lack of seriousness. If the CVS check/resurrection is so trivial then it is the responsibility of the author to do it, or another, more flexible system has to be set that will stop putting unnecessary work load on translation teams. Ignorance is not an excuse. We are not talking "ignorance" here but "irrelevance". And "irrelevance" is definitely an excuse. JC Helary
