On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:57:55AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > Additionally, having a mixed-language codebase may be > off-putting to some potential contributors.
It's also going to decrease consistency[1] and increase the bar to contribution to (ad absurdum) working knowledge of each language of each patch contributor. > [D]oes it not seem likely that by welcoming patches written in the > first and most common language of our largest groups of users, we > would receive more patches[?] It doesn't seem likely since an understanding of existing English code would seem a prerequisite for any patches to exist in the first place. > (Finally, if we don't receive many patches, then what will be the loss for > having tried? At most, we will have a small number of patches to translate > from > Spanish to English. Not a big deal, right?) Oh wait, are you supporting *reviewing* patches in any language but *committing* only translated patches? That seems much less consistency-hostile. > Regards, > > Michael Martin 1. I don't think the second section of PEP-8 diminishes this objection
pgpwfkU67ptld.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
